U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–146 PDF 2014

EPA VS. AMERICAN MINING JOBS: 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S 

REGULATORY ASSAULT ON THE 

ECONOMY 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, October 10, 2013 

Serial No. 113–47 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, October 10, 2013 ........................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Holt, Hon. Rush a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Fogels, Edmund, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources ....................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Hamilton, Chris, Senior Vice President, West Virginia Coal Association ... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Maier, Sheldon, President, Fortymile Mining District .................................. 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Van Vactor, Norman, Chief Executive Officer, Bristol Bay Economic 

Development Corporation ............................................................................. 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Kile, Linda, Prepared statement of ................................................................. 29 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 49 

Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA, Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs, Letter submitted for the record Representative Holt ......... 34 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, Prepared statement of .............................................................. 49 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON: EPA VS. AMERICAN 

MINING JOBS: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S REGULATORY ASSAULT ON THE 

ECONOMY 

Thursday, October 10, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Gohmert, Fleming, Benishek, 

Flores, Daines, Cramer, Holt, Horsford, Tsongas, Huffman, 

Lowenthal, Garcia, and DeFazio. 

Also Present: Representative Young of Alaska. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The committee will come to order. The Chairman 

notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee Rule 3(e), 

is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing 

titled, ‘‘EPA vs. American Mining Jobs: the Obama Administration’s Regulatory Assault on the Economy.’’ 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. We will 

also hear from the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Full Committee, if they are here, and I believe that will be the case for at 

least one of those gentlemen. 

However, I ask unanimous consent to include any other Members’ opening statements in the hearing record, if submitted to the 

Clerk by close of business today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Also, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Don Young of 

Alaska be allowed to participate in today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize myself. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. Last year, we held a hearing on EPA’s retroactive 

veto of the Spruce Coal Mine in Logan County, West Virginia, in 

2010. That same year, EPA, at the request of six federally recognized Tribes and commercial fishermen, initiated a watershed assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed in southeastern Alaska, in 

an effort to derail the development of the world’s largest known 

2 

hardrock mineral resource: in essence, an effort to preemptively 

veto mining across a whole region of Alaska. 

The watershed assessment covered an area the size of West 

Virginia, more than 24,000 square miles, and was designed to 

reach an outcome that the entire region is unsuitable for mining. 

The assessment was severely criticized by a panel of scientists appointed by EPA to review the document. 

Meanwhile, in Chicken, Alaska, an EPA SWAT team of heavily 

armed and armored agents conducted ‘‘paperwork’’ inspections on 

small mining operations in what appears to be nothing more than 

an effort to intimidate and scare hard-working Americans. 

This hearing is about the story of how one agency, the Obama 

administration’s EPA, can single-handedly decide to retroactively 

pull permits or prospectively veto any operations in areas the size 

of States and, at the same time, use armed SWAT teams to review 

permits. All combined, this agency is responsible for destroying 

4,000 coal mining jobs between 2011 and 2012, crippling local and 

State economies, increasing our dependence on foreign sources of 

minerals, and increasing energy costs for all Americans, seemingly 

all without consequence. 

At the heart of this issue is the lack of confidence in permitting 

by the Federal Government. If, without cause, an agency can retroactively veto issued permits, or prospectively veto permits not applied for, then how can any company, contractor or concessionaire, 

have confidence to invest in America, when their permit is not 

worth the paper it is written on? 

And I am not talking just about permits required by the mining 

industry. The Army Corps of Engineers issues an average of about 

60,000 permits annually under the section of the Clean Water Act 

in question for all types of businesses and industries, including 

road and highway construction, and commercial and residential 

real estate. All industries are in danger if the Supreme Court allows the retroactive veto of the Spruce Mine permit to stand. 

It gets worse. In 2009, the EPA asked the Navajo Nation permission to withdraw the permit issued in the Desert Rock Energy 

plant. That $4 billion investment would have created thousands of 

jobs, generating tens of millions in revenues for the Navajo Nation, 

and created the infrastructure for a broad expansion of solar power 

across Navajo lands. One added bonus would have been the electrification of a broad section of the Navajo Nation, where people 

currently live without electricity. But that permit, after being 

issued, was withdrawn by the EPA for review. Needless to say, it 

has never been reissued, down to this day. 

The Obama administration’s ‘‘war on coal’’ can be felt throughout 

the country, from Logan County, West Virginia, to Farmington, 

New Mexico. Now it has seemingly expanded to an all-out war on 

mining jobs, threatening workers from Chicken, Alaska to 

Superior, Arizona. 

Americans deserve better from the EPA. There is no excuse for 

conducting armed raids on family owned businesses to look for 

minor permit violations. Retroactively and prospectively vetoing 

permits, destroying high-paying family wage jobs, adversely affecting government economies, and making Americans more dependent 

3 

on foreign sources of mined materials should not be the hallmark 

of President Obama’s policy. 

It has been said by someone within the agency that the EPA’s 

job is to crucify American industry, to bring them to heel. From 

armed raids to random permitting conditions and arbitrary permitting, it appears they are doing their best. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who have, unfortunately, been the victims, in some cases, of this administration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Last year we held a hearing on EPA’s retroactive veto of the Spruce Coal Mine 

in Logan County, West Virginia in 2010. That same year EPA, at the request of six 

federally recognized Tribes and commercial fishermen, initiated a ‘watershed assessment’ of the Bristol Bay watershed in Southeastern Alaska in an effort to derail the 

development of the world’s largest known hardrock mineral resource—in essence an 

effort to preemptively veto mining across a whole region of Alaska. 

The watershed assessment covered an area the size of West Virginia, more than 

24,000 square miles, and was designed to reach an outcome that the entire region 

is unsuitable for mining. The assessment was severely criticized by a panel of scientists appointed by EPA to review the document. 

Meanwhile, in Chicken, Alaska, an EPA SWAT team of heavily armed and armored agents conducted ‘‘paperwork’’ inspections on small mining operations in 

what appears nothing more than an effort to intimidate and scare hardworking 

Americans. 

This hearing is the story of how one agency—the Obama administration’s EPA— 

can single-handedly decide to retroactively pull permits, or prospectively veto any 

operations in areas the size of States, and at the same time use armed SWAT teams 

to review permits. All combined this agency is responsible for destroying 4,000 coal 

mining jobs between 2011 and 2012, crippling local and State economies, increasing 

our dependence on foreign sources of minerals, and increasing energy costs for all 

Americans—seemingly all without consequence. 

At the heart of this issue is the lack of confidence in permitting by the Federal 

Government. If without cause an agency can retroactively veto issued permits or 

prospectively veto permits not applied for, then how can any company, contractor 

or concessionaire have confidence to invest in America when their permit is not 

worth the paper it is written on? And I’m not talking just about permits required 

by the mining industry. 

The Army Corps of Engineers issues on average about 60,000 permits annually 

under the section of the Clean Water Act in question for all types of businesses and 

industries including road and highway construction, and commercial and residential 

real estate. All industries are in danger if the Supreme Court allows the retroactive 

veto of the Spruce Mine permit to stand. 

At some point in time one has to wonder what the EPA and the administration 

have against Alaska, and the Appalachian basin, and American coal miners in general, but their attacks on the Navajo Nation are well documented as well. 

In 2009, the EPA asked the Navajo Nation permission to withdraw the permit 

issued to the Desert Rock Energy Plant. That $4 billion investment would have created thousands of jobs, generated tens of millions in revenues for the Navajo Nation, 

and created the infrastructure for a broad expansion of solar power across Navajo 

lands. One added bonus would have been the electrification of a broad section of the 

Navajo Nation where people currently live without electricity. But that permit, after 

being issued, was withdrawn by the EPA for review, needless to say, it has never 

been reissued. 

The Obama administration’s ‘‘war on coal’’ can be felt throughout the country, 

from Logan County, West Virginia to Farmington, New Mexico. Now it has seemingly expanded to an all-out ‘‘war on mining jobs’’ threatening workers from 

Chicken, Alaska, to Superior, Arizona. 

Americans deserve better from the EPA. There is no excuse for conducting armed 

raids on family owned businesses to look for minor permit violations. Retroactively 

and prospectively vetoing permits, destroying high-paying family wage jobs, adversely affecting government economies, and making Americans more dependent on 

foreign sources of mined materials should not be the hallmark of the President 

Obama’s policy. 

4 

It has been said that the EPA’s job is to crucify American industry, to bring them 

to heel. From armed raids to random permitting conditions, it appears they are 

doing their best. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who have often 

been the victims of this administration. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is unfortunate 

that the Environmental Protection Agency is unable to be here 

today to present its side of the story. I think it is even more unfortunate that this Republican-led government shutdown has resulted—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Will the gentleman yield? Let’s just get on with this 

hearing, and quit the politics. 

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. Has resulted in the Environmental 

Protection Agency not being out in the field protecting our air, protecting our water, ensuring that America’s most toxic waste sites 

are properly cleaned up. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, and to the other members of the 

committee, I think it is completely appropriate in this committee 

that we talk about what the government should be doing. And so 

I think that some of my friends on the other side may be pleased 

at the shutdown’s effect, especially those who voted 38 times during the 112th Congress to dismantle the Clean Water Act and 

other environmental protections. But certainly the families that 

rely on clean air and safe drinking water and unpolluted lands are 

less appreciative of the efforts to shut down the government and 

defund the EPA. 

If the EPA were here, they would be able to directly refute the 

implications of this hearing, I think. We will wait to see how that 

goes. But I think the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. 

Mining employment is up, and keeps going up. According to the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is also shut down, there were 

over 5,000 additional coal mining jobs in 2012 than there were 4 

years earlier, a 7 percent increase. There were also 5,000 additional metal or mining jobs in 2012 than 4 years earlier, a significant increase. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 

there are more mining jobs during the current administration than 

there have been in the past 15 years. 

Now, since a major focus of this hearing is the situation in 

Alaska, I think it is worth noting that mining employment in 

Alaska is up 34 percent since 2008. It has more than doubled since 

2004. It is hard to argue with numbers like that. 

I do want to thank the witnesses for being here today, particularly given the long distances you have traveled, and the fact that 

you can’t visit the museums and other things here in Washington 

on this visit. I particularly want to welcome Mr. Van Vactor, 

former seafood processor and CEO of Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation. 

5 

Coming from New Jersey, I understand the huge importance of 

fishing to an economy. The commercial and recreational fishing industries in New Jersey bring in over $8 billion in sales, and support 54,000 jobs. But, as important as fishing is to my own State, 

that doesn’t even begin to describe the importance of fishing to 

Bristol Bay watershed, where it is, well a good metaphor, the lifeblood of the community. 

Bristol Bay’s salmon fisheries contribute $1.5 billion in economic 

value, and provide half of all the sockeye salmon in the world. The 

salmon sustains the way of life for Native American tribes throughout the region, and it is one of the staples of their diet. So, any 

negative impacts on the salmon fishery could be harmful to the 

economy and to the heritage of the area. 

It is my belief that the Bristol Bay watershed is too important 

and too fragile to allow a massive open-pit mine, industrializing the 

landscape, and creating long-term waste management challenges. 

And I think it would put into jeopardy the way of life of dozens of 

native villages and native residents. And it would threaten fishing 

jobs and harm a pristine ecosystem. 

It is why I believe that it is appropriate for the EPA to carefully 

study the impacts of the large-scale mining in the region to see if 

I am right. I told you what I think. I would like to be sure that 

we get the facts from EPA. Their peer-reviewed scientific watershed assessment is designed to fill gaps in the science and to look 

at the potential consequences of moving forward with a mine. 

EPA has yet to take the first steps required to initiate any restriction under the Clean Water Act, but the Bristol Bay watershed, I think, should be studied. We should look at the science. And 

efforts to portray the EPA’s enforcement as an attack on mining, 

I think, are misguided. 

I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH D. HOLT, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it’s unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency is unable to be 

here today to present its side of the story. I think it’s even more unfortunate that 

because of this Republican-led government shutdown, the Environmental Protection 

Agency isn’t out in the field protecting our air, protecting our water, and ensuring 

that America’s most toxic waste sites are cleaned up properly. 

I think some of my friends from the other side may be pleased at the shutdown’s 

effect on the EPA, especially those who voted 38 times during the 112th Congress 

to dismantle the Clean Water Act, but certainly the families that rely on clean air, 

safe drinking water, and unpolluted lands are less appreciative of efforts to shut 

down the government and defund the EPA. 

If the EPA were here, they’d be able to directly refute the dual implications of 

this hearing: that they are somehow opposed to mining jobs, and that mining jobs 

are disappearing. Because the facts speak otherwise. Mining employment is up, and 

keeps going up. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics—which, I might add, 

is also shut down because of this Republican House—there were over 5,000 additional coal mining jobs in 2012 than there were in 2008, a 7 percent increase. There 

were also 5,000 additional metal ore mining jobs in 2012 over 2008, a 13 percent 

increase. In fact, the BLS reports that there are more mining jobs during the 

Obama administration than there have been in 15 years. 

Since a major focus of this hearing is on the situation in Alaska, it’s worth noting 

that mining employment in Alaska is up a staggering 34 percent since 2008, and 

has more than doubled since 2004. It is hard to argue with a straight face that 

6 

somehow the EPA or this administration is carrying out a, quote, regulatory assault 

on mining. That simply does not match the facts. 

I’d like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, particularly given the 

great distances many of you traveled, and the fact that you were willing to come 

to Washington, DC, at a time when some of our best tourist attractions, such as 

the Smithsonian, are closed. 

I’d like to particularly welcome Mr. Van Vactor, a former seafood processor and 

now CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, which represents 

the commercial and recreational fishing interests of Bristol Bay. 

Coming from New Jersey, I understand the huge importance of fishing to the 

economy. The commercial and recreational fishing industries in New Jersey bring 

in over $8 billion in sales, and support 54,000 jobs. But as critically important as 

fishing is to my own State, that doesn’t even begin to describe the importance of 

fishing to the Bristol Bay watershed, where it is not an exaggeration to call it the 

lifeblood of the community. 

The Bristol Bay salmon fishery contributes $1.5 billion in economic value, and 

provides half of all the sockeye salmon in the world. But salmon also sustains the 

way of life for Native American tribes throughout the region. It is one of the staples 

of their subsistence diet, and it is the basis for their culture. Negative impacts on 

the salmon fishery could destroy their villages and their heritage. 

It is my belief that the Bristol Bay watershed is too important, and too fragile, 

to allow a massive open-pit mine that will industrialize the landscape, create extremely long-term waste management challenges, put the way of life of dozens of 

Native villages at risk, and threaten tens of thousands of fishing jobs that depend 

on a pristine ecosystem. 

That is why I believe it is altogether appropriate for the EPA to carefully study 

the potential impacts of large-scale mining in the region. Their peer-reviewed scientific watershed assessment is designed to fill gaps in the science, and look at the 

potential consequences of moving forward with a mine. 

While the EPA has yet to take the first steps required to initiate any restriction 

under the Clean Water Act, the fact is that when the company does submit its longawaited permit application, if it ever does, the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment 

will provide crucial science necessary to further analyze the impacts of a specific 

project. 

Efforts to portray the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Water Act as an attack on 

mining are flat-out misguided. Opponents of the EPA’s actions can cherry-pick individual examples that they argue bolster their point, but the truth remains: mining 

jobs are up during the Obama administration, and the EPA remains committed to 

making sure that mining is done in a way that protects our air, our water, and our 

land. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Since the Full Committee Chairman 

is not here, we won’t hear from him at the moment. If he comes 

later, we will do so. 

And in the meantime, I would like to hear from the Ranking 

Member of the Full Committee, Representative DeFazio of Oregon. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact 

that we are meeting today in the midst of a government shutdown. 

We are taking testimony on an issue and an area upon which this 

committee has no jurisdiction, which would be the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Clean Water Act. I do sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which does have a good 

part of that jurisdiction. So, you know, hopefully, if there were real 

issues to be heard, the T&I Committee would be hearing them, 

about abuses of the 404 permitting process. 

7 

Second, Energy and Commerce also has jurisdiction, but this 

committee does not. So we are here today to stage a hearing. 

I heard some incredible hyperbole, no offense, Mr. Chairman, 

during the opening remarks. Armed SWAT teams? I am quite familiar with law enforcement. An armed SWAT team is a particular 

specialty, and they carry automatic weapons, longarms and other 

things. These were law enforcement agents of both the State of 

Alaska and the Federal Government entering onto Federal lands, 

and they were carrying holstered sidearms. That isn’t a SWAT 

team raid. Now let’s not get a little overboard here and say that 

somehow that constitutes a SWAT team. So, and it is routine for 

law enforcement officers to carry sidearms. And, you know, that 

has been blown out of proportion. 

Second, the issue of the 404 permits. Some people think that if 

you blow the top off of a giant mountain and you bury 7 miles of 

a stream, that you are having some impact on water quality. Others don’t. Hard to believe, but that is where the EPA acted retroactively to say, well, you know, maybe when the Bush administration said that blowing the top off this mountain and filling in 11 

miles of stream had no consequence, you know, in Oregon you can’t 

even drive through a stream in many places. You can’t harvest timber approximate to a stream. These people were just going to fill 

them in. I guess then you don’t have a stream any more, so you 

don’t have to worry about the impacts. But a little bit odd to me. 

So, to say, gee, they acted somehow arbitrarily in this case is not 

true. This was a huge and immediate impact and an irrevocable 

impact. They are not going to put the stream in a culvert, they are 

not going to dig it up again. And it is going to cause leaching forever. 

And then, finally, on that topic, their actions were upheld by the 

D.C. Circuit Court. Again, this is all out of the jurisdiction of this 

committee, so we are having a, you know, a pretend hearing here 

on something that we can’t do anything about. But, in any case, I 

would just like to lay out a few facts. 

And finally, Bristol Bay. You know Don and I are going to disagree over Bristol Bay and the potential impacts here. But you are 

looking at hundreds of thousands of tons of mining debris in the 

largest open-pit mine in North America that is somehow going to 

be sequestered forever and not have any impact on the fisheries in 

Bristol Bay, despite the fact that they would be mining immediately around a number of the major tributaries, and they would, 

in fact, disrupt some of the major tributaries. 

There has been some talk about, ‘‘Oh, we will provide some other 

wetlands, and we will do this, and we will do that.’’ You know, we 

are going to do geoengineering in order to destroy an environment 

that is perpetual and balanced and sustainable, and providing 

more than $1.5 billion a year of value throughout the economy of 

Alaska and the West Coast. This impacts fishers from my State, 

also. 

So, you know, this is a very real issue. The EPA put forward a 

draft report after some concerns. They pulled it back, they wrote 

another. It is still in peer review. We haven’t heard the results yet. 

But they have not initiated a process, over which this committee 

has no jurisdiction, yet. 

8 

So, that is why we are here today. You know, there are a few 

other real things out there. I have had timber sales in my district 

suspended. You know, all across the West, all the timber sales have 

been suspended on both BLM and Forest Service lands. The king 

crab fishing fleet is in port, because they can’t get their quotas. 

Real economic impacts because of a war on government by the 

Republican Party. That is why we are here today. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PETER A. DEFAZIO

I’m a bit amazed by this hearing that we’re holding today, and not just because 

this is an issue that is outside of the jurisdiction of our committee. I’m amazed because the majority is trying to portray the EPA as engaging in some sort of ‘‘war 

on mining’’, when the real war on mining and jobs is currently being waged by the 

House Republican Majority through their misguided shutdown of the entire Federal 

Government. 

Instead of having Federal permit reviewers approving new mine plans and drilling permits, and instead of having Federal safety and health inspectors out there 

making sure that existing operations are being done properly, we have hundreds of 

thousands of employees sitting on their hands because of the antics of a House 

Republican Majority that wants to delay a health care law they don’t like. 

For example, in 2012, the Bureau of Land Management approved over 5,000 permits to drill oil and gas wells: that’s roughly 100 permits each week. So that’s 100 

permits that have not been approved since the Republican shutdown started last 

Tuesday, and the number keeps going up. 

The longer this goes on, the more severe the impacts will be. Next week there 

was supposed to be an oil and gas lease sale in New Mexico—but that has now been 

canceled. Two weeks from now there’s one covering Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota, and that one is in doubt as well. And it’s a domino effect, with the 

shutdown keeping the government from preparing for future lease sales, resolving 

protests, and doing the environmental reviews necessary for new wells. 

The Republicans like to fantasize that this administration has some on-going war 

on fossil fuels, despite the increases in production, despite the increases in permits, 

despite the ongoing lease sales offering millions of acres each year. But their shutdown is making this fantasy a reality, grinding the entire Federal leasing and permitting system to a halt, and they have no one to blame but themselves. 

When it comes to the fantasy surrounding this particular hearing, I believe Ranking Member Holt has already pointed out the statistics about how mining jobs are 

up in this country across the board, for both coal mines and metal mines. 

So there’s clearly no effort by the EPA, or this administration, to shut down mining in this country. Far from it. But what we have being discussed today is something that I don’t think we had nearly enough of in the previous administration: 

taking a hard look at where mining is occurring, and making sure it’s being done 

the right way. 

Bristol Bay deserves a particularly hard look. It is an important economic driver 

for both the State of Alaska and the entire Pacific Northwest: over 2,000 jobs in the 

State of Oregon depend on that fishery. Any activity there requires the best available science to assess the risks and evaluate the potential consequences, and I 

strongly support the EPA’s efforts to gather that science on mining in that watershed. 

If EPA determines that there is no way to put a mine in this region without unacceptable water quality and fishery impacts, then that is not the right place for a 

mine. It’s simply not worth the risk to the entire Bristol Bay fishing industry, the 

jobs that depend on it, and the entire way of life of dozens of Native villages. 

The EPA is right to be doing their watershed assessment, they’re right to be taking a close look at mining impacts, and they’re right to be holding miners accountable. I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to their testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

9 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I would like to remind the gentleman 

that this committee does have oversight over mining. I will get you 

the language. 

We will now hear from our witnesses. I want to thank each of 

you for being here and appreciate the long distance that you have 

come, in some cases. Your written testimony will appear in full in 

the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 

5 minutes. 

Our microphones are not automatic, so you have to turn them on 

when you are ready to begin. 

I will also explain how our timing lights work. When you begin 

to speak, our clerk will start the time and a green light comes on. 

After 4 minutes, a yellow light. After 5 minutes, the red light, and 

I would ask that you conclude at that time. 

So, I would like to now welcome to the table our four witnesses: 

Mr. Edmund Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the State of Alaska Representative to 

the Interstate Mining Compact Commission; Mr. Sheldon Maier— 

I hope I pronounced that correctly. 

Mr. MAIER. Maier. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Maier. Thank you for the correction, President of 

the Fortymile Mining District; Mr. Chris Hamilton, Senior Vice 

President of the West Virginia Coal Association; and Mr. Norman 

Van Vactor, Chief Executive Officer of the Bristol Bay Economic 

Development Corporation. 

Mr. Fogels, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF EDMUND FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF 

ALASKA REPRESENTATIVE, INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT 

COMMISSION 

Mr. FOGELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Edmund J. Fogels, 

Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources. I am here to testify on behalf of the State of Alaska and 

the 26 member States of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I thank you for the opportunity to bring to your attention 

some of the challenges that recent overreaching actions by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency have created for mining States 

throughout the country. 

The institutional attitude of the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated in the examples I will provide today needs to 

refocus on a more collaborative and respectful relationship with the 

States. We are hopeful that, through a careful oversight of you and 

your colleagues, this change will occur, and mining in the United 

States will continue to provide good jobs to our citizens, and valuable commodities to our industries in a manner that is consistent 

with the mission of EPA and, more importantly, the interest of our 

States in protecting human health and the environment. 

My primary message today is that State governments have developed effective and robust regulatory programs that should be relied 

on by Federal agencies, not overridden by them. When Federal 

agencies such as EPA seek to expand their mining regulation, they 

are often duplicating existing well-functioning programs. 

10 

There are three concrete examples of EPA overreach that I will 

share with you today. 

First, the EPA has been developing a watershed assessment of 

our Bristol Bay watershed, an area roughly the size of West 

Virginia. This assessment is in reaction to the proposed Pebble 

Mine. The issue for Alaska here is not the Pebble Mine, but the 

potential effective loss of all beneficial use of this massive area of 

State land, which was promised to the State as part of the Statehood Act, to help secure an independent economic existence for 

Alaska. This is a serious concern, as the area of the watershed assessment represents almost 10 percent of the State of Alaska’s land 

holdings. 

This study could lead to the preemption of what really should 

happen here, a thorough environmental analysis of the project, 

once it is actually proposed, through the National Environmental 

Policy Act, whereby one of the Nation’s largest EISs would undoubtedly be produced. 

And this study is flawed. It has no legal basis. It is based entirely on hypothetical mining activity, compounded by theoretical 

projects that may never develop. It ignores modern best practices, 

mitigation measures, and permit stipulations that would be required. The bottom line: no project would ever get permitted if it 

could not meet the requirements in multiple State and Federal permits. 

My second example is the EPA’s attempt to displace successful 

State bonding programs for the hardrock mining sector pursuant to 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 

Liability Act, or CERCLA. Bonds are required to ensure that States 

can reclaim and remediate mines if a miner is unable to do so. And 

they are the financial cornerstone of environmental protection. The 

bond calculations are tremendously complex, and are the culmination of years of permitting efforts. The States have developed vast 

experience in administering these bonds, and EPA has stated that 

they will not grow their agency to duplicate this expertise. 

We understand that there may be legal sideboards within 

CERCLA. But States need to be a partner in resolving this. Above 

all, we should not gut effective State programs. Any rulemaking 

should be thoroughly vetted with State experts before release. 

Third is the increasing frequency of elevations requested by EPA 

when it does not agree with a 404 permitting decision, a decision 

that typically has been carefully and cooperatively made with other 

Federal and State agencies. Using the section 404(q) of the Clean 

Water Act, and usually when EPA determines that a subject water 

body is an aquatic resource of national importance, EPA will elevate the decision to higher-level staff, causing significant delays. As 

there is no definite standard as to what might be an aquatic resource of national importance, it is very difficult for major projects 

to develop timelines that can predict how EPA’s review will affect 

the project. 

It bears repeating that the primary theme of my testimony is 

that in all of these examples, the process would have gone much 

more smoothly if the States were consulted and respected as these 

Federal actions were developed. And we believe that the process 

would have gone smoother still if Alaska had primacy for its 404 

11 

permitting program. In fact, we are currently evaluating if we 

should pursue such primacy. 

Recently the EPA spearheaded an enforcement action against 

small miners in the Fortymile District of Alaska. My fellow 

Alaskan, Sheldon Maier, who is a miner in this district, is also 

going to testify before you today, so I will not delve into this issue. 

But I would like to say that the Federal agencies should defer to 

the State agencies to get the problems resolved before sending in 

the enforcement troops. We know what is happening on the ground, 

we know the miners, we know their plans of operation. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that Federal regulators 

must respect the primary role and responsibility of the States in 

managing, administering, and protecting their lands and waters. 

This is clearly stated in the Clean Water Act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you and 

your leadership. I would be happy to answer questions when the 

time is right. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fogels follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDMUND J. FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF ALASKA AND

THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources—I am Edmund J. Fogels, Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AK DNR). On behalf of 

Governor Sean Parnell, the State of Alaska thanks the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and express our support for your work to ensure that mining in 

the United States will continue to create wealth and provide for the Nation’s mineral needs in the future without duplicative and overly burdensome Federal regulation. I have also been entrusted by the 26 member and associate-member states of 

the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) to convey their views to the 

Subcommittee today, and to express their gratitude for your leadership in this area. 

In particular, I thank you for the opportunity to bring to your attention some of 

the challenges that recent overreaching actions by a particular Federal agency—the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—have created for mining states throughout 

the country. The institutional attitude of the EPA demonstrated in the examples I 

will provide today needs to refocus on a more collaborative and respectful relationship with the states. We are hopeful that, through the careful oversight of you and 

your colleagues, this change will occur and mining in the United States will continue to provide good jobs to our citizens and valuable commodities and raw materials to our industries in a manner that is consistent with the mission of the EPA, 

and, more importantly, the interests of our states in protecting human health and 

the environment. 

Biographical Information 

Before getting into substantive matters, I would like to briefly mention my professional background as it pertains to this testimony and provide some information 

about the IMCC. I have been serving as Deputy Commissioner of AK DNR, a state 

agency of over 1,100 personnel, since December 2010. I have worked as a natural 

resource manager for the State of Alaska for over 25 years, including as a mining 

regulator and state/Federal mining permit coordinator. AK DNR is the largest nonFederal land manager in the United States. In addition to Alaska’s vast mineral 

resources, we manage one of the largest portfolios of oil, gas, water, timber, and renewable energy resources in the world. Our workforce is staffed by experts on 

responsible exploration and development that have years of experience with 

Alaska’s unique environment. 

The IMCC, of which the State of Alaska became a full member this year, is a 

multi-state organization that represents the natural resource and related environmental protection interests of its member states. Twenty-one states have ratified 

their membership in the IMCC through acts of their respective state legislatures, 

and five others participate as associate members while they pursue enactment of 

12 

1 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b) (emphasis added). 

state legislation ratifying their membership. A primary focus of the IMCC is liaising 

with Congress and the Federal government to promote a cooperative effort between 

state and Federal agencies in advancing responsible mining development and environmental protection. 

Overview of Today’s Testimony 

My primary message today is that state governments must be allowed to be an 

equal partner, and at times to take the lead, in regulating mining in their respective 

states. A healthy mining industry and environmentally sound natural resource development are important to Alaska and the member states of the IMCC, and are 

in the best interests of the United States. Responsibly developing our mineral resources benefits our citizens and the country as a whole. To make this happen, we 

need cooperation rather than frustration from Federal agencies such as the EPA. 

The states have developed effective and robust regulatory programs that should be 

relied on by Federal agencies, not overridden by them. 

States have been a central part of bringing about the modern era of mining regulation and environmental protection, and these processes have been very effective 

at correcting past mistakes. When Federal agencies, such as the EPA, seek to expand their mining regulation they are often duplicating existing, well-functioning 

programs. This duplication is not only inefficient, but it has real costs to the states 

and their residents who work to responsibly develop and protect natural resources. 

The states’ familiarity with the specifics of their respective local mining industries 

is irreplaceable, and Federal agencies must recognize the states’ role in representing 

their citizens’ economic and environmental interests. 

The examples of ongoing processes that are negatively affecting the State of 

Alaska and the IMCC member states that I will describe today illustrate how Federal overreach can create uncertainty, increase cost, and cause delay for mining investment. These are also all examples where well-functioning state processes have 

been duplicated or disregarded. To solve this problem, Federal regulators must: 

First, respect the primary role and responsibility of the states in managing, administering, and protecting their lands and waters. This role is grounded in the 

states’ position as sovereign entities in the system of federalism recognized in the 

U.S. Constitution, and has been unequivocally acknowledged many times by 

Congress. For example, the Clean Water Act—one of the primary Federal environmental statutes the EPA is tasked with administering—clearly states: ‘‘It is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and 

rights of the states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and 

water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this chapter.’’ 1

Second, respect the experience and expertise of state agencies who are often much 

more familiar than Federal regulators with the particular circumstances and needs 

in their communities. States may be able to craft more practical solutions to challenges if their roles are not displaced by rigid Federal processes that do not take 

into account state experience and expertise. In short, states are more likely to be 

problem solvers, looking for and finding solutions that work well for their environment and their economy. 

Last, defer to, and build on, the successful programs that are already in place. 

New programs do not need to be built from the ground up at the Federal level, as 

this will duplicate many of the well-functioning processes that are established and 

well-managed by the states. This will ensure that the expertise of both the states 

and of other Federal agencies can be used efficiently. Collaboration with and support for state programs should be the focus of new Federal initiatives. 

II. MINING, UNDER MODERN STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS, IS CRITICAL TO OUR STATES

I know that the Subcommittee is very familiar with the numerous benefits that 

are associated with U.S. mining, so I will only quickly outline them to give a foundation to the issues of state primacy that my testimony focuses on. Bottom line— 

mining is critical to the economic, social, and security interests of our states and 

the Nation as a whole. When companies, including the many small businesses that 

participate in American mining, invest in mineral exploration and development in 

the United States it brings high-paying, technical jobs back to our country. Many 

times, especially in a state like Alaska, these investments and developments occur 

in rural areas and bring economic opportunities and social benefits to our citizens 

that are otherwise not widely available. Domestic mining also brings secure domesVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
13 

tic supplies of important resources—for example: coal and uranium for energy security, iron for industrial production, and gold and other metals for modern high-tech 

applications. We are in a global competition for these resources—for secure supplies 

to meet our demands, and for the investment that drives employment and development in our states. 

III. MINING REGULATION IS LOCAL, AND SHOULD REMAIN PRIMARILY THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES

The issues we are discussing today are certainly global and national, but they are 

also local. Environmental protection benefits those who live in the protected environment. Clear and general standards, enforced by objective regulators, have to be 

applied to specific situations in specific locations. This is why the State of Alaska 

focuses so intently on maintaining high standards for environmental protection—so 

many of our citizens, whom our state government has a Constitutional responsibility 

to represent, regularly utilize Alaska’s environment. Many areas of Alaskan life, 

from traditional subsistence lifestyles to local recreation to our robust tourism industry, are dependent on protecting our fish, wildlife, water, and land from degradation. 

This is also why Alaska, and the members of the IMCC, recognize that a wellregulated mining industry brings real, local benefits to our residents. The most frequently cited and clearly illustrative example in Alaska is the Red Dog Mine in the 

Northwest Arctic Borough. This project brings hundreds of jobs to this remote region, and provides the Borough’s only source of tax income. In partnership with the 

regional Alaska Native Corporation (NANA, Inc.), this mine has generated hundreds 

of millions of dollars of economic activity in the region and is far and away the region’s largest employer. When these kinds of mining projects are delayed or deferred 

due to Federal overreach and permitting delays, it means that local residents do not 

have access to employment opportunities, and social programs in rural areas have 

limited funding. As commodity markets are dynamic, delayed projects may miss 

windows of opportunity. This stretches a 1 or 2 year permitting delay into potentially decades before communities see projects move forward. When projects are 

abandoned altogether, it means economic and social opportunities they could have 

provided in our states are completely lost. 

Local affects, both positive and negative, are central reasons why mining regulation must preserve a strong role for the states. Federal resources and expertise 

should not be disregarded, but these complex regulatory activities must primarily 

rest with state regulators who are on the ground and who understand the full range 

of their respective states’ interests. We need to reverse the tendency seen in the last 

several years to centralize agency decisionmaking in Washington, DC. In this regard, I would like to submit for the record a resolution concerning the states’ federalism concerns that was recently adopted by IMCC which further expands on our 

concerns and recommendations regarding state and Federal relations. (Material submitted has been retained in Committee’s official files.) 

IV. CURRENT STATE MINING REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS ARE EFFECTIVE AND

FUNCTIONING WELL

Mining can have impacts on the environment. Many of the laws that regulate 

mining today were passed to remedy the negative impacts that prior, unregulated 

mining had during the 1800s and early 1900s. State regulators can confidently say 

we have learned many lessons from these earlier projects. The same re-prioritization 

of environmental protection that motivated the passage of Federal laws such as the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in the 1970s and 1980s has also occurred 

in state government. Modern regulations and mining practices, with states functioning as the leading regulator in many areas, now successfully mitigate impacts 

associated with mining. 

This point is critical for our discussion today—there are not lapses or loopholes 

in today’s environmental regulations. There is not a need for Federal regulators to 

displace existing state programs. Recent EPA initiatives to ratchet up their regulations are a solution without a problem. They usurp authority from the states, and, 

in some cases, from their own partners in other Federal regulatory agencies, while 

resulting in less-effective regulation. 

V. EPA OVERREACH CREATES UNCERTAINTY, INCREASES COSTS, AND CAUSES DELAY FOR

PROJECTS

There are three concrete examples of EPA overreach that I will share with you 

today, but this list is certainly not exhaustive. The administrative process within 

14 

2 Almost all of the lands in the assessment area are owned by the State of Alaska. Conversely, 

almost none of the lands are owned by the Federal government. 3The watershed assessment has been conducted at a cost of over $2 million dollars. In the 

context of sequestration and serious Federal budget challenges, these are funds that the EPA 

has expended on a purely discretionary activity while letting mandatory responsibilities (i.e., approving state-proposed water quality standards) slide. 4The activity EPA evaluated in the watershed assessment was based in part on a non-technical investor document prepared in 2011 by an entity with a partial interest in the project to 

comply with Canadian financial disclosure requirements. 5Despite the fact that the watershed assessment was begun in response to a petition for a 

preemptive CWA 404(c) veto by private groups, the EPA has stated it ‘‘will not address use of 

its regulatory authority until the assessment becomes final.’’ However, EPA has acknowledged 

the watershed assessment will ‘‘provide an important base of information’’ for EPA to respond 

to the petition. 

which these dialogs occur can be extremely detailed and technical, and this opacity 

works against effective oversight and readjustment of agency priorities. It bears repeating that the primary theme of my testimony is that all of these processes would 

have gone much more smoothly if the states were consulted and respected as these 

Federal actions were developed. We are hopeful that Congress will support the 

states in the future by reaffirming the call for state primacy supported by the U.S. 

Constitution and described in Federal law in your continued oversight. 

The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment—Uncertainty 

Since 2010 the EPA has been developing a ‘‘watershed assessment’’ of an area 

roughly the size of West Virginia in the Southwest of Alaska.2 After the short description of this rushed process that I will provide, it will be unquestionably clear 

that it has really accomplished only one thing—increased uncertainty in the regulatory framework for mining in the Bristol Bay region. 

Despite there being no clear basis in statute, regulation, or past practice for this 

kind of study,3 this new watershed assessment process has developed an unauthorized regulatory document, based on hypothetical mining activity in the region, to potentially support the unprecedented exercise of a preemptive CWA 404(c) veto by 

EPA. To be clear—the State of Alaska is not concerned that an attempt is being 

made to gather information in the region related to mining, or to ensure that the 

numerous valuable ecological resources in the sensitive Bristol Bay region are protected. With the watershed assessment, a Federal agency is creating new, ambiguous regulatory steps that exclude the state and duplicate the processes already put 

in place by existing state and Federal law. The state’s biggest issue is not Pebble 

Mine—but the potential effective loss of all beneficial use of this massive area of 

state land, which was promised to the state as part of the Statehood Act land entitlement to help secure an independent economic existence for Alaska and Alaskans. 

This is a serious concern, as the area of the watershed assessment represents almost 10 percent of the State of Alaska’s land holdings. 

Were a mining permit submitted for a project in the region, a duly authorized 

Federal regulatory document that is consistent with established law and the public 

participation process would have to be prepared. This would not be a watershed assessment but instead an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The latter process would also allow for the State 

of Alaska to participate as a cooperating agency, and have a formal role representing its interests in the process. An EIS must still be completed for any future 

development in the region, but it will likely be pre-determined by the amorphous 

regulatory action undertaken by the EPA in conducting the watershed assessment 

outside of the normal NEPA process. 

The EPA’s multi-year, multi-million dollar assessment is also based entirely on 

hypothetical mining activity.4 Under the typical regulatory process, which will still 

have to occur for any future mining development in the Bristol Bay region regardless of EPA’s actions stemming from the watershed assessment, a project proponent 

would be responsible for submitting a detailed mine plan to state and Federal regulators to review. If this mine plan did not comply with state mitigation and environmental protection laws, or did not receive appropriate Federal permits under the 

CWA, it would not be able to go forward. All of these decisions would be made based 

on specific proposals, rather than speculation and conjecture. 

Finally, a watershed assessment is not the manner in which the EPA is statutorily authorized to involve itself in a regulatory approval process under the CWA. 

While the EPA has not committed to do so, the State of Alaska has repeatedly 

raised the concern that EPA will use the assessment to claim it has authority to 

preemptively veto CWA section 404 permits before they are issued or even applied 

for.5 The EPA does have the authority to veto CWA section 404 permits—if they 

15 

6 As well as the successful bonding programs conducted by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) 

in the Department of Agriculture (DOA). 

are deemed to be insufficient after full review of the mining plan has taken place. 

The preemptive veto that the EPA has been urged to make would turn this process 

on its head and replace the statutory process called for under NEPA and the CWA 

with a process created on an ad-hoc basis by EPA outside of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). 

The state has submitted many detailed comments and criticisms of the watershed 

assessment to the EPA, and my comments today are only a summary of these concerns. On this point, the take-away is that the EPA has obfuscated and duplicated 

the EIS/NEPA/CWA section 404 process in conducting its assessment—without involving the specifics of an actual project or the application of the state’s processes. 

Ad-hoc regulatory steps that diminish the state’s role are the opposite of how 

Federal agencies should be conducting their work. 

CERCLA 108(b) Bonding—Costs 

The EPA’s attempts to displace successful state bonding programs for the hardrock mining sector pursuant to its authorities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) is another major concern to Alaska and the members of the IMCC. Despite the extensive expertise that 

state agencies have developed in the areas of bonding and reclamation, it is unclear 

how an EPA-administered hard-rock bonding program would incorporate this expertise or how it could affect these successful state programs.6 This is an example of 

the need for Federal agencies to respect and proactively consult with states on regulatory issues, rather than making us fight to provide information about the success 

of the programs we already have in place. 

This process could have enormous negative impacts on the mining investment in 

the United States and our national interests by driving up capital costs. Reclamation bonds are capital commitments that companies must make to ensure cleanup 

and reclamation of mining activities are completed if the companies themselves go 

bankrupt or are unable to remediate their sites. Bonds are the financial cornerstone 

of environmental protection and are a cost that responsible operators must pay to 

receive mining permits. However, unsophisticated calculations by the EPA, uninformed by the vast experience of the states, would throw the bonding process severely out of balance. Excessive bonds do not make it more likely that a mine will 

be properly remediated, but they may prevent it from being developed entirely. 

The EPA’s initiative to develop bonding requirements for hard-rock mines under 

CERCLA 108(b) dates back to 2009. In response to a suit brought by environmental 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs), a Federal district court in California found 

that the EPA had not complied with timelines in CERCLA to begin issuing bonding 

requirements for industrial activities that create a high risk of releasing hazardous 

materials into the environment, and ordered the EPA to begin doing so. In July 

2009 EPA announced in the Federal Register that it would begin with hard-rock 

mining. This was in some ways a surprising decision, because EPA did not have any 

institutional expertise in bonding hard-rock mines. Successful state and Federal programs were already in place, and modern mitigation measures and reclamation 

have significantly decreased the risk of hazardous material releases associated with 

hard-rock mining. 

Many states raised questions and concerns about how the rulemaking was proceeding in 2010 and 2011. In this regard, I would like to submit for the record copies of resolutions recently adopted by IMCC and the Western Governors Association 

that address this matter in greater detail. (Material submitted has been retained 

in Committee’s official files.) The State of Alaska understands that this rulemaking 

has been delayed by EPA’s focus on its numerous other expansive regulatory undertakings, but may be reinitiated this year or next. If this rulemaking goes forward, 

the EPA should commit to deferring to state bonding programs and honoring their 

primary role of managing mining programs within their respective jurisdictions. Importantly, any rulemaking should be thoroughly vetted with state experts before its 

release so that EPA can benefit from their expertise regarding the content and implementation of the rule. 

Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNIs)—Delay 

The final subject I will touch on today is the role the EPA has played in reviewing 

the work of other Federal permitting agencies, and delaying decisions that have 

been carefully and cooperatively made. Under section 404(q) of the CWA, EPA is 

directed to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Army Corps of EngiVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
16 

7 Ironically, this process culminates in a 404(c) veto action—the same veto that the EPA’s 

Bristol Bay watershed assessment is gathering a ‘‘base of information’’ for before any Corps permit application has even been submitted. 8 EPA 404(q) fact sheet: ‘‘EPA has requested higher level of review by the Department of Army 

on 11 permit cases under the 1992 404(q) MOA as of January 2011 . . . Eight (8) additional 

permit cases were elevated to EPA Headquarters.’’ See http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/ 

outreach/upload/404q.pdf. 9Formally titled: ‘‘Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review 

and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (External Review Draft).’’ See 78 Fed. Reg. 58,536 

(Sept. 24, 2013). 10See EPA Report Information, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=238345. 

neers (Corps) to implement their shared responsibilities under CWA section 404. 

This memorandum lays out a process for escalating levels of review at both the EPA 

and the Corps when EPA believes a permit improperly addresses environmental 

concerns.7

Recently the EPA has been quick to escalate review of projects under the MOU. 

EPA documents indicate that in the first 20 years of the MOU, less than 20 permit 

cases were elevated in the entire country.8 One of these was an oil development 

project on the North Slope of Alaska in 2005. In the last 3 years two 404(q) letters 

have been sent in Alaska alone: in 2010 for a bridge built over the Tanana River 

by the Alaska Railroad, and just last month for a road being developed for a road 

near the native village of Nuiqsut on the North Slope. 

The process in the MOU was ostensibly created to streamline the joint EPA and 

Corps review timeline for CWA permits, but in practice EPA ARNI concerns have 

been raised once details of the project have been extensively debated between the 

Corps, state regulators, and the project proponent. As there is no definite standard 

as to what might be an ARNI, it is very difficult for major projects to develop 

timelines that can predict how EPA’s review will affect the project. Project proponents are pressured to accept changes sought by the EPA to preliminary Corps 

decisions in order to avoid the potential extended delay that a disagreement between the Federal agencies could entail. 

VI. EPA’S ENFORCEMENT APPROACHES REINFORCE THE NEED FOR STATE PRIMACY IN

MINING REGULATION

My fellow Alaskan Sheldon Maier from the 40-mile district in Alaska where the 

‘‘Chicken Raid,’’ as it is being called, took place is also going to be testifying before 

you today, so I will only speak briefly about this incident and leave the details to 

him to describe. However, I will note that it demonstrates the over-zealousness that 

the EPA and other Federal agencies are applying to the enforcement of their environmental regulations. This kind of enforcement raises serious issues for all 

Alaskans who exercise their rights to use the state and federally managed lands and 

waters in Alaska, and especially for many of our miners. It also highlights the importance of having state regulators who know the details of operations as the primary lead on the programs that have such direct impacts on the state’s citizens. 

VII. FUTURE EPA OVERREACH SHOULD BE AVERTED BY STATE CONSULTATION ON CWA

JURISDICTION TODAY

The EPA has recently released a draft document prepared for its Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) that has been informally titled the ‘‘connectivity study.’’ 9 This is a several hundred page report that documents the interconnection of most water in the 

entire United States, and will serve as the basis for an expansive EPA rulemaking 

that will likely dramatically increase CWA jurisdiction. The EPA has acknowledged 

as much, noting on its website that this report ‘‘will provide the scientific basis 

needed to clarify CWA jurisdiction’’ 10 and listing the areas that the future rulemaking will generously exempt, such as ‘‘artificial ornamental waters’’ and ‘‘artificially irrigated areas that would be dry if irrigation stops.’’ 

The scope of CWA jurisdiction is absolutely critical to the management of land 

and water in every state throughout the country. It has been disputed for decades, 

including in multiple cases before the Supreme Court that have restricted EPA’s 

prior interpretations of its authority. It is therefore absolutely critical that the 

states be extensively consulted during this rulemaking. Unfortunately, that isn’t 

happening. 

While the connectivity study is currently out for public comment and is not yet 

finalized, the EPA has been developing its rulemaking in tandem with the study, 

which EPA states ‘‘provide[s] the scientific basis needed’’ to justify its development. 

Troublingly, a draft proposed rule has already been sent to the Office of ManageVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
17 

11 Rather than the potentially extra-legal attempts EPA initially pursued to make jurisdictional determinations through guidance documents that were not reviewed under the APA. 

ment and Budget (OMB) in the White House for interagency review. While the State 

of Alaska and many of the IMCC states have pushed for a formal rulemaking to 

clarify CWA jurisdiction, 11 this undertaking should not be conducted without the 

detailed involvement of the states. Additionally, it should not be conducted before 

the states have been able to comment on and review the report providing the underlying scientific basis for the rulemaking. 

Unfortunately, the states have been provided the same opportunity to comment 

on the connectivity study as the average member of the public. This disregards the 

clear direction of the CWA to consult with, and retain the primary role of, state governments in managing land and water use. For example, the State of Alaska— 

representing almost 20 percent of the land mass of the United States—is not even 

featured in the maps in the connectivity study. There are no sections addressing its 

unique arctic environment or the complexities of permafrost. These kinds of omissions starkly illustrate the need to involve state regulators who know the specifics 

of their respective regions from the very beginning of these processes. 

VIII. THE SOLUTION

The problems I have discussed here today are difficult to solve. They will require 

a change in approach by Federal regulators to increase rather than decrease consultation with states when dealing with mining regulation. Unfortunately, expressions of Congressional intent language like that in the CWA are not always enough 

to stem Federal overreach. There must also be continued oversight and leadership 

from Congress and the executive branch to ensure that states are treated as partners in the critical process of environmental protection. The benefits of such a 

stronger state and Federal partnership will accrue to the whole Nation. Increased 

Federal efficiency will reduce both government expense and delays that affect 

projects. State primacy will ensure that all of the state’s interests are represented 

in regulatory decisionmaking. Environmental protection can continue to be strengthened by Federal and state experts complimenting rather than duplicating each other’s work. 

The states are ready to take up this partnership. The membership of 26 states 

in the IMCC demonstrates this commitment, and provides an excellent venue for 

the further development of state and Federal partnerships in the area of mining 

regulation. In the future, the country as a whole may want to discuss broader solutions, including review of the CWA, CERCLA, and other environmental laws to ensure that the states’ expertise can be more effectively put to work in these areas. 

For example, the Canadian process of devolving resource management authority to 

provinces and territories may provide lessons that could be applied to our own system. The IMCC member states are committed to an open dialog about these ideas. 

Additionally, the State of Alaska is going a step further and undertaking a review 

of assuming primacy for permitting under CWA section 404. Under this program, 

the state, rather than the Corps, would administer many 404 permitting responsibilities in cooperation with EPA. If we moved forward, this could require significant 

effort and expense by the state, but it may also make permitting projects, including 

mining projects, in Alaska more efficient, timely, and certain. We are putting our 

money where our mouth is. We are also potentially alleviating significant financing 

and staffing burdens for the Federal government at a time of very limited Federal 

budget capacity. This kind of partnership is a win-win scenario. There are many 

questions that need to be answered regarding development of the state program before we can make a recommendation to the Governor and the State Legislature to 

continue the process, but we are committed to continuing our thorough evaluation. 

IX. CONCLUSION

I have presented a number of problems caused by overreach by the EPA and other 

Federal agencies, and I know my fellow panelists will be raising others. I am also 

presenting a solution—respect for states’ rights and state primacy. States need to 

remain in the driver’s seat on mining regulation so we can protect our environment 

while also attracting the mining investment that protects our citizens’ economic 

security. I respectfully ask that you continue your careful oversight of Federal regulatory agencies to ensure they acknowledge this need. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today, and for your leadership supporting American 

mining. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

18 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Maier. 

STATEMENT OF SHELDON MAIER, PRESIDENT, FORTYMILE 

MINING DISTRICT 

Mr. MAIER. Thank you. I am Sheldon Maier, President of the 

Fortymile Mining Association. Fortymile Mining Association was 

first convened in 1898. We have been organized and operating ever 

since to try to continue to ensure responsible resource development 

in our region. 

First, I will start by talking about the Federal overreach by the 

EPA, and about the raids. We consider them raids. It was a serious 

invasion. 

On August 13—I think it was between the weeks of—or in week 

22 through 27, the EPA led their environmental crimes task force 

with armed agents. Between 3 and 7 agents entered 30 different 

mining locations in the Fortymile. They entered mine sites without 

identifying themselves. They charged in, at Dick Hammond’s family mine, he was at his cabin when they came by. Seven agents 

rode by on four-wheelers, didn’t stop to identify themselves. Went 

up to his mine site, without him being there, poked around on his 

equipment, he had to go up and ask them what they were doing. 

And they said they were there to enforce the 404 Clean Water Act. 

He said they were extremely nervous, he was extremely nervous, 

because he had never experienced anything like this before. 

The Race family, Chris Race, he was working on a piece of broken equipment, so he wasn’t actually mining, or sluicing, what we 

call at the time, and four Federal agents, or ‘‘agents,’’ came by him. 

They didn’t bother to stop and talk to him. They just came up and 

started poking around his mine site, too. They started looking at 

all of his equipment, climbing around on his stuff, looking for, well, 

he had to go ask them what they were doing. The same thing, they 

didn’t bother to identify themselves. This is definitely not professional conduct from a law enforcement agent. 

And then Jeff Owen, another miner that I spoke with, he had the 

seven armed agents come to his mine site. They all had their full 

flak gear on, said ‘‘Federal Agents’’ on their vests. They were carrying not just sidearms. They told him they were there to collect 

water samples. When they did collect water samples, the only one 

he saw them take, which, when you are collecting a water sample, 

you are supposed to take it out of the main stream that the miner 

is actually operating on, not a side tributary. The only sample he 

saw them take was out of a side tributary. 

And then, Linda Kile, who is here today, and she has firsthand 

experience, because she was actually raided. And it would be nice 

for you to hear her side of the story. 

Notwithstanding this unacceptable show of force, I mean we are 

used to getting inspected by agencies, the State and the Federal 

agencies, it is unacceptable that this happens. There is no peerreviewed science studied today to show that has been done currently, that placer mining is doing anything to hurt the water. We 

all, we have been living this life for a long time. I have been mining for 22 years in the Fortymile. Mrs. Kile has been for 37. We 

drink the water, we eat the fish. We care deeply for the land. We 

19 

don’t want to see it ruined. We just want to be able to continue our 

lifestyle. 

But we have multiple agencies, four Federal agencies right now 

are coming down on us. If we can’t do something to stop what is 

happening with this regulatory overreach, we won’t be in business 

any more. The Bureau of Land Management is one of them; MSHA, 

the other one; and the Corps of Engineers. And we have, the 

OSHA, for instance, they offer an exemption for small miners. We 

don’t get one. Or, I mean, for small business owners. MSHA doesn’t 

offer that for small miners. 

As far as the water quality standards go, I couldn’t get any answers out of the EPA on where the water quality standards came 

from that we are supposed to be getting out of our settling ponds 

if we have discharge. But the only answer I got was the EPA said 

that the DEC set the standard. Well, the DEC said the EPA gave 

them a directive that they needed to pick one, so they picked drinking water. We are supposed to have drinking water standards of 

anything that comes out of our pond systems. And it is just not attainable. We can’t humanly do that. 

And I thank you for allowing me to come here today and testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHELDON MAIER, FORTYMILE MINING ASSOCIATION

THE FORTYMILE MINING ASSOCIATION

Gold discovery in the Fortymile September 7, 1886 by Franklin and Madison on 

Franklin Gulch. March 25, 1898 first official meeting of the Fortymile Mining 

Association (FMA) on Bonanza Bar. The Fortymile has been mined and prospected 

since making it the oldest Mining District in Alaska. 

Placer gold is washed from gravel without the addition of chemicals. There are 

approximately 657 active small scale placer operations in Alaska today; 77 are in 

the Fortymile mining district. 

The FMA maintains annual meetings and fundraising to ensure responsible 

mining activity in the region. 

FEDERAL OVERREACH BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

August 2013; an EPA led crime taskforce with armed fully suited squads of 3– 

7 men entered 30 mining locations in the Fortymile. The taskforce took water samples from small scale placer operations to ascertain compliance with discharge 

requirements mostly without the courtesy of introducing themselves to the mine operators. 

EPA visit at Jeff Owen’s mine site; 7 armed guards in two cars entered camp, 

2 approached the miner for introduction, the rest started taking water samples. To 

measure potential discharge, a ‘‘background’’ water sample from upstream of the operation is needed. At the Owen mine site, the EPA took the background water sample from a small tributary to the mainstream instead. 

At the Race family mine, 4 armed guards entered on four-wheelers, they did not 

introduce themselves to the miner, but simply commenced sampling. The miner approached the agents to inquire about their activities. 

At the Hammond family mine, 7 armed agents passed the miner’s cabin without 

stopping or making introduction and commenced searching and sampling at the 

mine site. Again the miner approached the agents to find out what their purpose 

was. 

Linda Kile will give an account of the inspection at her and her husband’s mine 

site. Here again, no introductions were made, and the miner had to initiate dialog 

with the agents. 

Notwithstanding the unacceptable show of force to collect water samples, there is 

no science supporting current EPA small mine discharge restrictions. The only peerreviewed studies on the environmental effect of fluctuating suspended solids, or 

turbidity, from placer mining, use data from before current settling pond and reclamation requirements were in place. 

20 

The Army Corps of Engineer branch is also reaching into Alaskan’s mining rights 

further by planning to ensure wetland reclamation through compensatory mitigation. No study has investigated small scale placer mining impact on wetlands since 

current reclamation practices have been mandated. 

FEDERAL OVERREACH, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

In 1980 the Fortymile Management Plan along with plans for other Eastern 

Interior areas were mandated by Congress, but BLM has continuously ignored mandates in the plans to open designated areas to mineral entry, and the agency refuses 

to recognize valid existing rights with regards to navigable waterways, right-ofways, and validity of mining claims in the managed areas. 

In accordance with the 1980 mandate, small scale placer miners now fulfill settling pond and reclamation requirements. Otherwise small scale placer mining 

methods have changed little since 1980 continuing to rely on the physical properties 

of material and water for gold extraction. 

Nevertheless, BLM insists on a new lengthy and more restrictive management 

plan encompassing all Eastern Interior Alaska. 

MINING SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

MSHA regulations are applicable to small mines to the same extent as to large 

operations with hundreds of employees, and large mines employ several people to 

stay abreast of MSHA required record keeping; an onerous and unneeded task for 

small scale placer operations. 

FMA encourage miners in the district to follow MSHA mandated precautions and 

practice safety and FMA conducts an annual licensed MSHA training class facilitating this. 

OSHA partially exempts businesses with fewer than 10 employees; in the interest 

of attainable safety parameters, a similar MSHA small miner exemption is warranted. 

ECONOMIC AND HISTORIC IMPACT

The Alaska small scale placer industry impacts the economy in trade hubs as well 

as in the rural communities where the mines operate and contribute, and small 

scale place miners in Alaska work hard to comply with regulations to stay safe, minimize impact, and protect the environment. 

At the same time miners in the Fortymile are contributing to and participating 

in an ongoing part of Alaska mining history. Taking steps to ensure the survival 

of this sustainable and historically well preserved way of life is paramount. 

SECURING AMERICAN SMALL SCALE MINING JOBS

In cooperation with the Alaska Miners Association the FMA has worked continuously to seek acceptable solutions and we suggest: 

• Small miner exemption from most EPA, COE, and MSHA regulations; for 

mines under 10 employees and 20 acres 

• Congressional mandate to implement the original Fortymile management 

plan 

References: 

—Alaska Polar Regions Archives, Rasmusen Library, UAF 

—Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

—EPA and MSHA regulations 

—http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,2&q=turbidity+mining+alaska 

—Army Corps of Engineers 

—Proposed Eastern Interior Management Plan, and communications with BLM 

state director Cribley Oct 2012 

—Fortymile Management Plan 

—https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/ 

owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9632 

—Fairbanks Economic Development Cooperation 

—Personal communication 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton. 

21 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS HAMILTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

WEST VIRGINIA COAL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I am 

Chris Hamilton, Senior Vice President of the West Virginia Coal 

Association. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing. 

Our State of West Virginia just celebrated its 150th birthday, 

and we have been mining for all of those 150 years. As a State, we 

manufacture and export energy and power throughout the eastern 

part of our country, throughout the world. It enables millions of 

Americans to enjoy the freedoms and liberties, and the world’s 

greatest quality of life, which we do. 

West Virginia is the second leading coal-producing State, the 

country’s leading underground coal-producing State, and a U.S. 

leader in coal exports, where we account for about 50 percent of the 

U.S. total. We have consistently averaged between 150 and 160 

million tons of annual coal production over the past several decades, until this administration took office. We ship coal to practically every State east of the Mississippi River and some 38, 39 

foreign destinations. Coal mining is a $30 billion business, an industry in West 

Virginia with coal and electric utilities accounting for over 60 percent of all business taxes. Over the years we have enjoyed a great 

workforce, great access to ports, and tremendous quality in our 

coals. We also have a great infrastructure to support that level of 

mining. We have the best miners found anywhere in the world. 

Our industry was rolling along just fine, expertly navigating the 

typical cyclic nature of our business with economic fluctuations and 

mild weather patterns affecting demand and market conditions. In 

January 2009, all that changed when we began to experience an 

all-out assault on our industry from the Obama administration and 

our Federal Government. Literally, the day after President Obama 

took office, mining companies in West Virginia began to receive objection letter after objection letter from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency raising objections to new permits. And even 

those that were already issued, where active operations exist. 

These were permits that were previously cleared by the same Federal agency, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, along with the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 

Then came the Administration’s Council on Environmental Quality and its multi-agency mine permit review process, known as the 

enhanced coordinated permit review process, and the imposition of 

new permit demands. This effectively slowed the mine permit process to a crawl, which soon afterwards became known as the Administration’s ‘‘Permitorium.’’ 

The Administration’s war on coal has been waged with a barrage 

of ill-conceived administrative and regulatory actions, such as 

EPA’s Spruce Mine retroactive veto, the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation’s totally unnecessary efforts to rewrite the Stream 

Buffer Zone, effectively paralyzing acres and acres and millions of 

tons of coal reserves in our State. And, of course, EPA’s regulatory 

train wreck. The war on coal is not rhetoric, it is real, and it is 

wrecking havoc and bringing harm to practically everyone in our 

State. 

22 

Today, 57 months into the Obama administration, the war on 

coal has taken its toll, and things are very bleak in West Virginia. 

Currently, we have 101 fewer mines operating today than this time 

in 2008. That means approximately one-third of our coal mines operating in 2008 are now closed. All mining operations are impacted. 

Surface and underground, every mine has slowed or has cut back. 

In West Virginia alone, there are over 3,500 miners laid off or 

furloughed, another 12,000 to 15,000 mining-dependent jobs, which 

have been lost over the last 3 years. Across the Appalachian region, 

the damage is even worse, with approximately 10,000 direct mining 

jobs lost and another 40,000 indirect jobs lost. At an average salary 

of $75,000 per person, the net effect is the removal of over $700 

million from West Virginia’s economy, and a whopping $2-plus 

billion loss from within a tri-state region, of Southwest Virginia, 

West Virginia, and Eastern Kentucky. These are real dollars that 

have been lost, impacting every family, every business in our area. 

The hardships on West Virginia and West Virginian families is 

hard to imagine from Capitol Hill: high stress levels, not being able 

to make ends meet, basic life needs not being met. These are too 

commonplace now, leaving a large number of West Virginians without hope and vulnerable to the perils of today’s society as hopes of 

gainful employment vanish, and the possibility of life without a 

paycheck and health care benefits preconditions all else. 

As mining jobs have stripped away, we have seen a significant 

rise in drug and alcohol abuse, theft, and other forms of crime, and 

a tremendous amount of social decay. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to participate, 

to share these numbers, to share these economic facts with you, as 

a direct result of this administration’s war on coal. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS R. HAMILTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WEST VIR- GINIA COAL ASSOCIATION AND CHAIRMAN, WEST VIRGINIA BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

COUNCIL

Good afternoon! I appreciate the opportunity to participate in your meeting and 

discuss the actions or inactions of this Administration on West Virginia’s economy. 

I’m Chris Hamilton, Senior Vice-President of the West Virginia Coal Association. 

More information on my background and experience in coal is included in my prepared remarks before you. 

West Virginia just celebrated its 150th birthday and we’ve been mining for all of 

those 150 years. We are without question one of the state’s leading industries, if 

not the leading industry. We have always provided good paying jobs, infused millions of dollars into local and statewide economies and have provided the region, 

state, country and world with low-cost, reliable power on a 24/7 basis. 

That’s what we do, as a state we manufacture and export energy and power 

throughout the eastern part of our country and throughout the world and it enables 

everyone else to enjoy the freedoms and liberties along with the world’s greatest 

quality of life. 

West Virginia is the second leading coal producing state, the country’s leading underground coal producing state and the U.S. leader in coal exports, accounting for 

50 percent of the U.S. total. We have consistently averaged between 150–160 million 

tons of annual coal production over the past several decades—this is until this 

administration took office. 

We ship coal to practically every state east of the Mississippi river and some 38– 

39 foreign destinations. 

Coal mining is a $30 billion industry in West Virginia with coal and electric utilities accounting for over 60 percent of all business taxes. Over the years, we’ve enjoyed a great workforce, great access and coal quality, close proximity to ports, and 

generally, a good infrastructure. We have the best miners and coal quality found 

anywhere in the world. 

23 

Our industry was rolling along just fine, experiencing the typical cyclic nature of 

our business with economic woes and mild weather patterns affecting demand and 

market conditions. In January 2009, all that changed when we began to experience 

an all-out assault on our industry from the Obama Administration and our Federal 

Government. 

Literally, the day after President Obama took office, mining companies in West 

Virginia began to receive objection letter after objection letter from USEPA, raising 

objections to new permits and even already-active operations that were previously 

approved and cleared by EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and WVDEP. 

Then came the Administration’s CEQ and its multi-agency mine permit review 

process known as the (enhanced coordinated permit review process) and imposition 

of new permit demands effectively slowing the mine permit process to a crawl, 

which soon afterward became known as the Administration’s ‘‘permitorium’’—the 

highjacking of state’s rights over the administration of water quality standards. 

A barrage of ill-conceived administrative actions, litigation and regulatory actions—e.g. Spruce mine veto, stream buffer zone proposal from EPA and its sister 

agencies OSM and MSHA, coupled with EPA’s ‘‘train wreck’’ advanced the ‘‘War on 

Coal’’. 

Fast forward to today, 57 months later, the war on coal has taken its toll and 

things are very bleak (statewide austerity). Currently, West Virginia has (101) fewer 

mines operating today than this time in 2008—approximately one-third of our coal 

mines operating in 2008 are now closed. All mining operations are impacted and 

every mine has been slowed or has cut back. 

In West Virginia alone, there are over 3,500 miners laid off or furloughed and another 12–15,000 mining dependent jobs have been lost. Across the Appalachian region, the damage is even worse, with approximately 10,000 direct mining jobs lost 

and another 40,000 indirect jobs. At $75,000 per person, the net effect is the removal of $719 million from our state’s economy and a $2.05 billion loss from our 

region. These are real dollars that have been lost, impacting every family and business in our area. 

The hardship on individuals and West Virginia families is hard to imagine. High 

stress, not being able to make ends meet, basic life needs not being met, are all too 

commonplace leaving a large number of West Virginians without hope and vulnerable to the perils of today as hopes of gainful employment vanish and life without 

a paycheck preconditions all else. As mining jobs have been stripped away, we have 

seen a significant rise in drug and alcohol abuse, theft and other forms of crime and 

social decay. 

Small communities throughout our state have been threatened and county and 

municipal budgets and resulting government services dwindle. 

Since 2008, West Virginia has lost 25 percent of production as coal prices and productivity continues to fall. West Virginia has lost millions of dollars in severance 

collections which serves to fund education, county budgets and important programs 

for seniors and the less fortunate. 

To make matters worse nearly 300 coal-fired power units nationwide have closed 

or will be retired this year. Other plants have switched to natural gas. A total of 

eighteen (18) coal-fired units in West Virginia have announced their plans to close. 

It is estimated that each unit accounts for approximately 100 full-time positions, 

thus the total number of jobs impacted in West Virginia by these closures is approximately 1,800 additional jobs. 

By utilizing every resource available to him, every Federal agency, President 

Obama has done everything in his power to obstruct West Virginia coal production 

and our industry from maintaining its viability in domestic and world markets. To 

date, and by all the negative administrative and policy acts, his mantra has been 

akin to ‘‘death by 1,000 cuts’’. The President’s plan on climate and EPA’s NSPS is 

a knock-out punch for our industry. 

Our only savior at the moment appears to be the export market. As domestic 

usage continues to trend downward, international demand grows exponentially. 

With West Virginia currently accounting for a large share of U.S. exports, we stand 

to gain and become a world marketer of coal. 

Fortunately for us, world coal usage is on the rise as developing countries expand 

their economies and infrastructure. Exports have doubled over the past five (5) 

years and coal is quickly becoming the world’s fuel of choice for power generation. 

In fact, coal is scheduled to surpass oil over the next 2–3 years. 

Other nations see coal the way America used to view this resource, as an abundant, low-cost and reliable fuel. America became a manufacturing superpower 

thanks to coal, and it can’t be a coincidence that our global domination waned when 

we stopped fostering coal industry development. 

24 

Although the current export market appears strong today, predictions of our continued presence and strength vary. As with domestic energy, we face strong competition for seaborne coal from foreign producers who do not have the same level 

of protections for the environment or for human rights. 

Actions of this president have even placed global opportunities at risk by calling 

on the World Bank and international financial institutions to stop funding the construction of coal-fired power plants and the construction of new port facilities which 

could handle greater coal volumes, are endangered by the EPA. 

In closing, I simply observe—the president speaks a lot about economic justice 

and hope and promise—I would simply ask: where is the justice for West Virginia 

and Appalachia? Where is the hope or justice for our coal mining families? 

There are few options available for many of our miners and by his actions, this 

president is effectively condemning them to lives of poverty and despair. Again, I 

ask where is the justice? 

Thank You. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Van Vactor. 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN VAN VACTOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, BRISTOL BAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, our own 

Congressman, Don Young, my name is Norman Van Vactor, and I 

am the CEO/President of the Bristol Bay Economic Development 

Corporation. 

BBEDC is a community-based corporation charged with developing and enhancing the fishery-related economic opportunities in 

our region. For nearly 40 years, I have worked in every aspect of 

the seafood processing industry in Bristol Bay, working my way 

from deckhand on a boat to the Bristol Bay manager for one of the 

largest seafood companies in the United States. I am particularly 

honored to be here today with Mr. Tom Tilden, Rick DelKittie, and 

Bobby Andrew, who are tribal leaders from our region. 

I have to confess, given my track record of aggressive economic 

pursuit and development, I never thought I would be in Washington, DC to testify in support of a regulatory agency. But EPA’s 

involvement in Bristol Bay offers the opportunity for a sciencebased, common-sense solution to the threat posed by the proposed 

Pebble Mine. So, here I am, and I thank you for the opportunity. 

Also, since I am here, I cannot help but comment on the fact that 

the government shutdown is already impacting our fishing economy. The Bristol Bay Red King Crab fishery must start on October 

15, or it risks losing a significant marketplace. Please end the shutdown so our fishermen can get their Federal permits and get back 

to work. 

My testimony today focuses on the importance of the Bristol Bay 

economic engine, based on our wild salmon fishery, and the positive 

role EPA has played, and should continue to play, in assisting the 

people of Bristol Bay to protect this immensely important cultural 

and economic resource. 

The indigenous people and folks like myself who call Bristol Bay 

home have one commonality: our lives and economy focus around 

salmon. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery, as has been mentioned, is, 

without question, large and lucrative, and provides about 50 percent of the world’s sockeye salmon production. The economic imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
25 

tance of the fishery extends well beyond Bristol Bay in the State 

of Alaska. We touch the Pacific Northwest in a big way and, by extension, our entire country: over 12,000 jobs, over 2,000 small business owners that we call fishing families. Our fishery is robust and 

healthy because of the pristine and untouched watershed conditions. 

In February of 2011, the communities of Bristol Bay drafted 

what we now call the Bristol Bay Vision Statement. That vision is 

based on the fact that we are a salmon-based community and economy, and is founded on a fish-first policy. 

The perspective shared by most of my industry, the production 

level with boots on the tundra and the boats of Bristol Bay, is, 

despite being at odds at times with regulators, EPA has been effective and fair in permitting and enforcement. Consistent enforcement rewards those of us in compliance, and provides a clear 

message to the regulated community that there is a price to be 

paid for non-compliance. 

The proposed Pebble Mine sits at the headwaters of the Kvichak 

and the Nushagak River drainages, two of the most prolific salmonproducing watersheds in the world. This sensitive location, its massive size, and potential acid-generating nature, combine to pose an 

unacceptable risk to our region. 

I want to highlight that EPA is involved in Bristol Bay in 

response to the unprecedented alliance of Tribes and native corporations, sport, and commercial fishing industries, all of whom 

petitioned EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to 

step in to help protect our wild salmon, the fisheries, and the people who rely upon them. This response was a collective expression 

of concern from the community to have certainty that its cultural 

and economic well-being would be protected. 

The EPA responded to our request by conducting a scientific assessment of the watershed and the salmon fishery. EPA has been 

responsible for several public hearings throughout our region. 

Ninety-eight percent of the people from Bristol Bay who commented to EPA, more than 1,200 comments all together, supported 

EPA action, just a remarkable level of agreement and participation 

from our region. This is an issue that has bipartisan support in the 

State of Alaska and elsewhere. 

EPA should complete its scientific study and address the request 

to protect Bristol Bay. There is a legitimate national interest in 

protecting clean water that has, for centuries, supported the people 

and economy of our region. As a businessperson, I would welcome 

a regulatory agency telling me right up front the core parameters 

of a permit that are proposed for my proposed operations. 

The pure and abundant waters of Bristol Bay support a salmon 

fishery that is the very foundation of Bristol Bay, unique in the 

world, and truly a national treasure. We, the people of the region, 

know we live in one of the most incredible places on earth. Our region feels threatened to its core by the proposed mine. The threat 

posed by the proposed Pebble Mine has gone on long enough. 

We support EPA, and we urge swift and decisive action under 

the Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Vactor follows:] 

26 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN VAN VACTOR, CEO/PRESIDENT OF BRISTOL BAY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. My name is Norman Van 

Vactor and I am the CEO/President of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC) in Dillingham, Alaska. I have lived and worked in the Bristol 

Bay region for the last 38 years. For 37 of those years I divided my time between 

Bristol Bay and Seattle, Washington. I started as a deckhand on fishing tenders 

working my way through college as a vessel Captain, later joining the Shore Side 

Management team with Peter Pan Seafoods as a Plant Manager. With time I became the Bristol Bay Manager for Peter Pan Seafoods, one of the largest seafood 

companies in the United States. My responsibilities included managing the shorebased cannery and the floating processing ships. In 2006 I joined a smaller familyowned fishing company and started a shore-based freezing operation in Dillingham. 

Subsequently I became the General Manager of Leader Creek fisheries based in 

Naknek, Alaska. 

From operating the oldest continually operating cannery in Alaska, to being involved with the development, construction, and modification of floating processors, 

to new startups, to taking on regulatory and other issues that preceded my direct 

involvement, my experiences throughout the fishing industry in Bristol Bay have 

been varied. 

Through these experiences, I have seen first-hand the immense economic and cultural value of the Bristol Bay fishery. Last fall I was offered the opportunity to become the CEO/President of BBEDC. We are a regional community-based corporation 

charged with developing and enhancing the economic opportunities in the 17 communities that we represent and for the greater Bristol Bay watershed when 

possible. Our support and constituency is not race-based but residency-based. The 

indigenous people and folks like myself who call Bristol Bay home have one commonality—our lives and economy focus around salmon. 

My testimony today focuses on the importance of the Bristol Bay economic engine—the pristine salmon fishery—and the positive role EPA has played and should 

play in assisting the people of Bristol Bay in protecting this immensely important 

economic and cultural resource. First I will define for you the economics of Bristol 

Bay; second I will speak to my business experiences as a manager of seafood processors in the community and as President/CEO of BBEDC; third I will explain my 

view on why the location, size and type of the proposed Pebble Mine presents an 

unacceptable risk to our economy and people; and finally, I will lay out the reasons 

why my community and others have asked the EPA to step in and use its legal authority to help protect the Bristol Bay watershed. 

BRISTOL BAY ECONOMICS

The Bristol Bay salmon fishery is without question large and valuable. The commercial salmon industry has been in place for over 120 years to say nothing of the 

time period of subsistence and recreational use before that. It is the world’s single 

most valuable wild salmon fishery and provides about 50 percent of the world’s 

sockeye salmon production. The economic importance of the fishery extends well beyond Bristol Bay and Alaska, and is particularly significant to the West Coast 

States of Washington, Oregon, and California. . . . In fact, the Bristol Bay fishery 

provides 14,000 jobs to the Nation. Every summer, over 7,000 commercial fishermen 

fish in Bristol Bay and this provides essential income and additional jobs to watershed residents. The University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research 

found the Bristol Bay salmon fishery has a total economic output or sales value of 

$1.5 billion across the United States (see Attachment 1—retained in Committee’s 

files). 

In the just completed fishing season of 2013, over 23 million fish found their way 

home and about 16 million fish were sustainably harvested. All that in a down biological cycle. Our fishery is robust and healthy because of the pristine and untouched watershed conditions. Consumers, increasingly aware of the healthy attributes of wild salmon vs. farmed salmon, are seeking our wild salmon products. 

Our fishery and the economic value derived from it, while not without challenges, 

are looking better than they have for 20 years. 

We know we have to invest in our own future. To that end, BBEDC recently acquired a 50 percent stake in Ocean Beauty Seafoods, one of the largest seafood processors and distributors in Alaska. In addition, Silver Bay Seafoods, a new player 

to the region and largely owned by fishermen, is building a new shore-based processing plant with capitalization in excess of $40 million. Silver Bay plans on being 

operational in 2014. These investments in our resource are being done with faith 

and hope for a continued healthy and sustainable fishery far into the future. GreatVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
27 

er investment opportunity exists and I have no doubt that others would invest their 

resources if the cloud of uncertainty, posed by the threat of the Pebble Mine, was 

eliminated. 

In February of 2011, after two years of engaging community members in 27 communities, the people of Bristol Bay drafted the ‘‘Bristol Bay Vision Statement’’ (see 

Attachment 2—retained in Committee’s files). 

As you can see the people of Bristol Bay have a clear vision for the future. That 

vision is based on the fact that we are a salmon-based community and economy, and 

the vision is founded on a fish-first policy. 

POSITIVE ROLE OF EPA PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

My perspective, and the perspective shared by most of the industry at the production level with boots on the tundra and in the boats of BB, is that EPA has been 

present, fair and consistent. I personally had positive and helpful interactions with 

EPA during my experience managing the seafood processing community. Further, 

I found EPA to be effective and fair in permitting and enforcing standards, and this 

fairness helps promote positive business decisions. 

Togiak Seafoods, which is owned in part by one of our member communities, is 

a good example where EPA provided clarity upfront so that the project could proceed. EPA told folks right off the bat that, given the volume of discharge and the 

location of the facility, certain criteria must apply to obtain a discharge permit for 

the site. This early input changed the way the community approached and implemented its business plan. EPA’s input didn’t stop the project; rather it changed it 

for the better of the community and industry. 

We can construct things properly and run our businesses accordingly when we 

know the necessary standards up-front. This also provides needed certainty for both 

the community and investors. Standards and regulations are important for the public and regulated community, but they are not enough. We also need strong and consistent enforcement by EPA to make sure that there is a level playing field amongst 

the regulated industry. Consistent enforcement rewards those in compliance and 

also provides a clear message to the regulated community that there is a price to 

be paid for non-compliance with permits intended to protect the environment. 

PROPOSED PEBBLE MINE

The location, type, and size of the proposed Pebble Mine—as described in the 

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.’s own publicly-available documents—presents an 

unacceptable risk to our people and economy. The proposed mine sits at the headwaters of the Kvichak and Nushagak River drainages, two of the most prolific salmon-producing watersheds in the world. These headwater areas include streams and 

wetlands that support the essential salmon spawning and rearing habitat of these 

drainages, and pristine water quality of these areas is critical for salmon production 

and survival. 

The Pebble deposit is a low-grade ore that requires large-scale mining to be economically viable. If fully developed, Pebble Mine would be the largest mine of its 

type in North America, and would dwarf the combined size of all mines ever developed in Alaska. 

Finally, a significant percentage of the ore within the Pebble deposit includes potentially acid-generating properties. The proposed Pebble Mine therefore would require the use of a tailings storage facility where acid-generating tailings would be 

stored behind a dam in perpetuity. 

In short, no iteration of the Pebble Mine plans I have seen is acceptable or good 

for Bristol Bay. These plans all contain unacceptable risks to the greatest wild salmon run left on the planet. 

THE EPA AND BRISTOL BAY

I want to highlight that EPA is involved in Bristol Bay because the community 

asked EPA to engage and protect the fishery and the people who rely upon it. Our 

community has received little support from the State of Alaska to date and we 

therefore turned to the Federal Government. In May 2010, six federally recognized 

tribes and commercial fishermen petitioned EPA to use its authority under the 

Clean Water Act to protect our fishery. Other Bristol Bay area tribes, the Bristol 

Bay Native Corporation, and Bristol Bay commercial and sport fishing groups, 

among others, also requested that EPA take action to protect Bristol Bay. This was 

a collective expression of concern from the community to have certainty that its cultural and economic well-being would be protected. 

The EPA responded to our request by conducting a rigorous scientific assessment 

of the watershed and the salmon fishery. The EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed AssessVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
28 

ment allows the EPA to move forward to protect the region based on solid sciencebased information. In completing its watershed assessment, the EPA conducted two 

essential peer reviews of its document and supporting studies. The EPA has also 

been extremely responsive to public comments and concerns, including visiting our 

region to hold public comment meetings in six villages—Igiugig, Levelock, Naknek, 

Nondalton, New Stuyahok, and Dillingham. I personally participated in three hearings and meetings that EPA held throughout the Bristol Bay region. To me, the 

EPA has been very responsive to our concerns. 

In addition to visiting the region, EPA had two public comment periods on the 

watershed assessment document. During the second public comment period, 98 percent of the people commenting from the Bristol Bay region—more than 1,200 people 

total—sent letters to the EPA in support of process and the watershed assessment, 

a truly remarkable level of agreement and participation from our region. 

The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment describes the location, size and type of the 

proposed Pebble Mine and clearly describes the threats to our lifestyle, community, 

and economic foundation. Again, no iteration of the Pebble Mine plans I have seen 

is acceptable or good for Bristol Bay. 

In my opinion the EPA should develop performance standards that will ensure 

that we deal with the hard questions about the proposed Pebble Mine up-front, thus 

providing greater certainty to businesses and the entire Bristol Bay community. The 

EPA has the legal authority to implement performance standards through the Clean 

Water Act, Section 404(c). The Riley/Yocom Report from 2011 (executive summary 

included as Attachment 3—retained in Committee’s files) describes the following 

performance standards that I believe EPA should implement to address proposed 

mining activities in the Bristol Bay watershed: 

1. No discharge of dredged or fill material into salmon spawning and rearing 

habitat; 

2. No discharge of dredged or fill material that is toxic to aquatic life; 

3. No discharge of dredged or fill material that requires treatment of runoff or 

seepage in perpetuity. 

EPA should take action now to protect Bristol Bay. There is a legitimate national 

interest in protecting clean water that has for centuries supported the people and 

economy of Bristol Bay. As a businessman, I would welcome someone telling me up 

front the core parameters of a permit for my proposed operations. 

Our community has been dealing with the uncertainty caused by PLP for many 

years. In fact, this summer Senator Lisa Murkowski called for a stop to this lengthy 

uncertainty, stating that the proposed Pebble Mine has promoted ‘‘anxiety, frustration, and confusion’’ in many Alaska communities. I couldn’t agree more. EPA could, 

by developing performance standards now, go a long way to eliminate that uncertainty. 

CONCLUSION

The pure, pristine, and abundant water of Bristol Bay supports a salmon fishery 

that is the very foundation of Bristol Bay, unique in the world, and which is a national treasure. The people of Bristol Bay know we live in one of the most incredible 

places on earth—all due to our pristine fishery. And that fishery is threatened to 

its core by the proposed Pebble Mine. 

EPA’s draft watershed assessment has added immense knowledge and value to 

the discussion concerning Bristol Bay. This information is vital to our community 

and future activities proposed for the Bristol Bay watershed. And just as we knew 

which standards would apply when I worked on bringing the Wood River Seafood 

Plant back to life, so too would responsible mining companies benefit upfront from 

knowing what standards to apply to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts to salmon fisheries. 

In short, the threat to Bristol Bay posed by the proposed Pebble Mine has gone 

on long enough. EPA should, as soon as possible, finalize the assessment and use 

its Clean Water Act authority to develop and implement performance standards that 

would apply to the proposed Pebble Mine. I support EPA, and urge swift and decisive action by it to protect Bristol Bay. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. We will now begin our questioning. Members are limited to 5 minutes, but we may have an additional round. 

29 

Let me fill you in on what is happening on the Floor. They are 

about to start votes. So when that happens, we will continue a little bit further along, then we will go into recess, and it will be 

about 30 minutes or so before we can come back. And then, at that 

point, we will resume. And I would ask the patience of each of our 

witnesses to indulge us while we go over and vote for about 30 

minutes, which is coming up fairly soon. 

I am going to yield my first 5 minutes of questioning to my colleague, Representative Young of Alaska, for scheduling purposes. 

And then he will yield to me in return. So, for 5 minutes, Representative Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding 

this hearing. I would like at this time to offer a testimony by Linda 

Kile and submit it for the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. There is no objection; so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kile, submitted by Representative Young for the record, follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA KILE

My husband and I have placer mining claims in Alaska near the border with 

Canada. Most of our claims are patented and therefore private property. My husband has 50 years of mining experience and I’ve been with him for 36 years. Over 

the years we’ve been visited by multiple regulatory agencies, all of whom arrived 

without prior notice, but all of whom sought us out, explained the reason for their 

visit and we proceeded from there. Our most recent visit by the EPA in no way resembled any of our previous encounters. 

This experience began Tuesday, August 20, 2013 with a single engine aircraft circling our camp at various times during the day, as well as flying up and down the 

creek which passes through our claims. We had no idea who it was or why they 

were circling our camp. 

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 the plane returned and again circled our camp several times and flew up and down the creek. We were becoming quite disturbed because it was now obvious we were under some type of surveillance and we wanted 

to know who it was and why we were being watched. 

At approximately 5:30 p.m. that day I heard several four-wheelers on the road 

below our camp, which is nothing unusual except the engines were suddenly shut 

off. I looked over the bank and saw three people wandering around. I headed down 

the hill toward them to see who they were and ask why they had stopped. As I got 

closer I was stunned to see that they all were wearing bullet-proof vests and were 

carrying various weapons. I looked down the road and saw three more armed and 

vested people with my husband and son. My mind was reeling at this point because 

I’d never seen anything like that on our mining claims. I approached them and 

asked who they were. In response one of the men silently pointed to the words on 

his bullet-proof vest which said ‘‘FEDERAL AGENT’’. I asked what that meant and 

they said ‘‘EPA’’. I then asked if there was something specific they wanted and they 

said they were taking water samples for the ‘‘Clean Water Act’’, though I didn’t see 

them take any samples. They said they were going to check all our creeks, two of 

which actually converged right next to them. I suggested they go ahead and take 

their samples right there in front of me, but they refused. They said they were going 

to look around on our claims. I informed them it was private property and was posted as such. Their only response was ‘‘Clean Water Act’’. I also asked them about 

the aircraft that had been circling us and they denied knowing anything about an 

aircraft. 

At that point they got on their wheelers and drove onto our property over to one 

of our shaker plants (used for sluicing), dismounted and began taking pictures of 

the shaker and surrounding area. I went to where my husband and son were talking 

with the other agents. He too questioned them as to why they were on our property 

taking pictures and what the pictures were for. The only response to him was the 

same that I’d received, ‘‘Clean Water Act’’ with no additional explanations. He also 

asked them about the aircraft and one agent replied that it was their ‘‘air support’’. 

My husband inquired about the firearms and show of force and the only response 

to that question was, ‘‘It’s policy’’. Two of the agents stayed close to my husband 

30 

and son while another was on our property taking pictures of our other shaker box. 

My husband questioned them about bypassing the ‘‘Private Property—No Trespassing’’ signs and taking pictures and again the only response received was ‘‘Clean 

Water Act’’. 

The six agents eventually left without any further communication with us. My 

husband, son and I were all very confused and upset about the entire encounter. 

At no time did any of them ever approach us and identify themselves. They presented no documentation to confirm their identities or explain the purpose of their 

invasion (the word ‘‘visit’’ is too civil a term for this encounter). We had to approach 

them. None of us witnessed them take a single water sample, so there is no way 

for us to verify if they actually did take samples, or if so where those alleged samples came from. The more we processed the encounter the more upset we became. 

We comply with all regulations and have never been cited for any violations. Suddenly and without provocation we are set upon by six fully armed agents on the 

ground and two in the air. They violated our property with no regard or respect for 

‘‘No Trespassing’’ signs, and left us with the frightening realization that this is happening in the United States of America to law-abiding citizens and it’s being perpetrated by our own Government. 

On September 14, 2013 there was a meeting in Chicken, Alaska regarding EPA’s 

‘‘visit’’ to multiple mining operations in that area. This meeting was attended by 

multiple miners; Sean Parnell, Governor of Alaska; representatives from the offices 

of Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young; as well as representatives of state 

legislators, along with Ken Fisher from the EPA in Juneau and Ted Murphy from 

BLM. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Murphy questioned about the necessity of the blatant 

show of force, as well as how they determined whom to visit. They stated that the 

list of mines they visited was a result of lengthy criminal investigations of miners 

with a history of non-compliance. They felt the weapons were necessary due to reports of heavy criminal activity in the area involving drug and human trafficking, 

and child endangerment as reported to them by Alaska State Troopers (which the 

troopers denied). 

Mr. YOUNG. And for the gentleman from Oregon, I am going to 

remind him that he was not there, and there is testimony that they 

were carrying M–16s and assault shotguns, fully armored, and 

said, ‘‘Police Agents.’’ This is a SWAT team. They did not communicate with any of the people they were investigating, they would 

not answer. All they would say, ‘‘Clean Water Act,’’ ‘‘Clean Water 

Act.’’ This is not the way our government should talk. 

They have been visited many times, and regulatory agencies 

have visited them. They always go in and introduce themselves. 

This was not Federal land, it was State land, State claims, and 

patented claims. They broke the law. And any time our government 

starts doing that without due process of the law, we have lost our 

government. We are losing it. 

There is such a thing as a handshake, say, ‘‘Listen, I have a 

problem. We want to take water samples,’’ and they could have 

done that. But, no, they came down with the heavy, just like the 

Park Service is doing in my State. There is no consideration of the 

human factor. And I think you will find out these small mines have 

been running, for like you said, 37, 40 years—1895? There have 

been no complaints, no science. Why the strong arm? 

I just want you to think about this. You sit back on that side of 

the aisle and think, ‘‘Oh, the government is so good, let’s hug 

them,’’ when they are, in fact, hurting people. Legitimately not 

doing so—in fact, they have a process which—they are forcing the 

little guys—we have heard about the coal mines, we heard about 

Pebble Mine, we have heard about the State. But let’s think about 

the little guy. You are supposed to be for little guy. You are for big 

government. Government can’t be wrong. Government is always 

31 

right. They rolled a 79-year-old man around in the mud, arrested 

him on nothing charges. You are supposed to be for the little guy. 

No, you are for big government. 

Mr. Maier, I want to ask you one question. Has much changed 

in these Fortymile areas, as far as mining goes, in the last 22 

years? 

Mr. MAIER. We just have a lot more Federal regulations to deal 

with, so the permitting—— 

Mr. YOUNG. But the process, though, has not changed? 

Mr. MAIER. No. We still fill out our APMA and then—oh, you 

mean as far as the mining goes? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. MAIER. As to how we mine? No, it is still—we just—we wash 

the rocks. We do settling ponds now, and do reclamation mandatory since—— 

Mr. YOUNG. And I want to stress that settling pond, because that 

was not a requirement when it started in 1895. 

Mr. MAIER. No. 

Mr. YOUNG. So now you have settling ponds. 

Mr. MAIER. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. And the settling ponds are supposed to reach the 

quality of drinking water? 

Mr. MAIER. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Which is very nearly impossible? 

Mr. MAIER. Yes, I don’t know how you would do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, because now, that is what they are probably 

basing this on. But they were—were they exempted for a period of 

time, or this is relatively new? 

Mr. MAIER. No—well, in 1986, when the—through ANILCA, and 

the management plans that were passed through Congress then is 

when the mandates for mandatory reclamation and water—having 

ponds and—so—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, the State did this first? 

Mr. MAIER. No, that, I think that came, as far as my knowledge, 

is it came through after ANILCA and the management plans were 

passed. 

Mr. YOUNG. But OK, management. Even EPA at that time 

wasn’t doing the investigation, though. 

Mr. MAIER. No, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. YOUNG. BLM is making things more difficult for you now? 

They are trying to put you out of business, is what I am trying to 

get across. 

Mr. MAIER. Yes, the BLM, they are working on a new management plan in the eastern interior, and it is getting far more restrictive. There are, well, for instance, there are six-and-a-half million 

acres in the Fortymile subunit. The current active mining claims, 

Federal mining claims, right now on the Fortymile are about 

25,000 acres. So that is less than, that is about .4 percent of the 

Federal land that is open for mineral entry. And now they want to 

limit more. They want to restrict more. 

And our main contention about this is the Federal Government, 

the BLM, just spent 3 years publishing a 1,400-page monstrous 

proposal, they are going to redesignate land. They want to put 

32 

more restrictions on access. We have a bone of contention with 

them over access on R.S. 2477’s and navigability issues. 

We have a plan that Congress passed in 1986. It is the Fortymile 

management plan. There are plenty of environmental safeguards in 

there. We, as the district, and the miners in the district, we try 

every way we humanly can to comply with these mandates. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is already the law. 

Mr. MAIER. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. I want everybody to remember, already the law, and 

now they are trying to change that law. That is the thing that concerns me a great deal. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I do thank you. And I want 

to thank the witnesses. 

And, Linda, I am sorry I submitted your written testimony. I 

would like for you to have been able to tell this committee that 

feeling of private property and these agents not responding to your 

questions at all. 

Again, think about our government. Forget your liberal labels. If 

you really believe in the people, start thinking about the little people. And shame on you if you don’t. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. We will now have time for one more Member’s questions. Then we will go into about a 30-minute recess. 

Representative Holt. 

Dr. HOLT. Thanks. Mr. Hamilton, let me clarify something in 

your testimony that I am really not sure of. 

According to the Coal Facts newsletter, published by the West 

Virginia Coal Association, has the number of employed coal miners 

increased or decreased in recent years? 

Mr. HAMILTON. It should show a decrease. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, in the Coal Facts 2012, the employment figures 

show 22,000 miners, the highest level in any of the reports on your 

Web site, an increase of 3,000 over the level from 4 years before. 

Is it increase or decrease? I am—— 

Mr. HAMILTON. The 2012 Coal Facts—— 

Dr. HOLT. I am genuinely—— 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Would have contained information 

on calendar year 2011. 

Dr. HOLT. I see. 

Mr. HAMILTON. There was a slight blip in employment from 2008 

to 2011. 

Dr. HOLT. 2011, OK. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Basically, due to the increased manpower demands on loss of efficiencies because of every mining company basically mining out of cycle, mining out of sequence, mining areas that 

they—— 

Dr. HOLT. OK. Now, Mr. Hamilton—— 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Did not engineer, because of the lack 

of permits. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. So it is from the year before. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes. 

Dr. HOLT. But your testimony accuses, I think that is probably 

the right word, the administration of being directly responsible for 

declining coal production in West Virginia, from the day of PresiVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
33 

dent Obama’s inauguration. Do you know what actually happened 

to national coal production over the first 2 years of the Obama administration? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I am not sure about national production. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. It increased. Do you know what happened to the 

national coal production in the first 2 years of the Bush administration? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I am not sure. 

Dr. HOLT. Actually, it decreased. So, you know, I would caution 

you against throwing these accusations around about a war. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, what I know is we produced 165 million 

tons of coal the year before President Obama took office. This year 

we will likely produce less than 100 million tons, a loss of 65 million tons of coal over a 41⁄2-year period, and the loss of some 3,500 

jobs. 

Dr. HOLT. And how much of that do you attribute to the use of 

natural gas for energy—— 

Mr. HAMILTON. There has clearly been an influence by the abundance of low-cost natural gas—— 

Dr. HOLT. I think a—— 

Mr. HAMILTON. Coal has actually regained most of the lost production to natural gas over the last 18 months, due to the price increases in natural gas. At least—— 

Dr. HOLT. I mean the use of coal for electricity from 2011 to 2012 

was down nearly 13 percent, natural gas up about 21 percent. So 

again, I am not sure that we can attribute this to a war on coal 

by the Obama administration. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, in addition to the lost jobs—— 

Dr. HOLT. Let me ask Mr. DeFazio if—— 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. There have been some 300 coal-fired 

power plants shut down—— 

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. He has—let me ask Mr. DeFazio—— 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. West Virginia. 

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. In my remaining 2 minutes if he has 

some questions that he would like to—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman, yes. I would like to turn 

to the gentleman, Mr. Van Vactor, on Pebble. 

You know, it’s been said that this is this national war, this Federal agency coming in to a place where it is not wanted. Could you 

tell me who requested the EPA to come in and do this oversight? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, it was an 

incredible coalition, the likes of which we have never seen in the 

State of Alaska before. As I mentioned, it was the native corporations, it was Tribes, it was the sport fishing industry, it was the 

commercial fishing industry. We asked EPA to come in because we 

felt the State wasn’t coming in. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And so you are telling me the commercials and the 

sports and the Tribes don’t get along all the time, huh? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. We do not get along all the time. So this was 

a very unique instance—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, I get that. 

Mr. VAN VACTOR [continuing]. A broadband coalition. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Now, as I understand it, people also say this 

is based on a hypothetical. But weren’t there documents by the proVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
34 

ponents of the mine that were filed, upon which the analysis was 

based? And isn’t it true that there would be hundreds of thousands 

of tons of toxic tailings or potentially leachate tailings, that would 

have to be sequestered forever, in order not to impact water quality? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. No question, Mr. Congressman through the 

Chair. The facts that the State has, tens upon thousands of pages 

of documents, which are actually generated by the mining companies themselves, as to the different possibilities and different applications, and different results. All you need to do is go to their own 

Web site, their own homepage. And it is not just tens of thousands 

of toxic tons. It is over ten billion tons. And that information comes 

right from their own homepage. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And you think that this could have an impact on 

water quality? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. No question, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. The livelihood of the folks—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. How many jobs for the mine versus the sustainable 

jobs? Last question. I am running out of time. 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Hundreds to maybe 1,500 versus tens of 

thousands. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That are sustainable forever? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Absolutely. Sustainable forever and have been 

around forever. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—— 

Dr. HOLT. Reclaiming the time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

ask unanimous consent to submit in the record a letter to the subcommittee from Trout Unlimited in support of the EPA’s assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. If there is no objection, so ordered. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. 

[The letter from Trout Unlimited to the Subcommittee, submitted 

for the record by Representative Holt, follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE HOLT

TROUT UNLIMITED, 

ARLINGTON, VA 

OCTOBER 9, 2013. 

Hon. DOUG LAMBORN, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

1333 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RUSH HOLT, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

H2–186 Ford House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN LAMBORN AND RANKING MEMBER HOLT: 

Trout Unlimited (TU) is writing on behalf of its 150,000 members nationwide to 

comment on the October 10th Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee hearing 

titled, ‘‘EPA vs. American Mining Jobs: The Obama Administration’s Regulatory 

Assault on the Economy.’’ Please include our letter in the hearing record. We wish 

to take this opportunity to convey our strong support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions in regards to proposed large scale mining in the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska. 

35 

1Letter from Senator Murkowski, July 1, 2013: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ 

files/serve?File_id=3b2efb37-cdd2-4203-8568-72c405e2a4e4. 2Why Miners Walked Away From the Planet’s Richest Undeveloped Gold Deposit. Bloomberg 

Businessweek, September 27, 2013: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-27/why-angloamerican-walked-away-from-the-pebblemine-gold-deposit. 

TU’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon 

fisheries and their watersheds. Protecting Bristol Bay’s world class fishery from the 

likely harm caused by the proposed Pebble Mine—which would be one of the world’s 

largest open pit mines, located in the headwaters of Bristol Bay’s most productive 

rivers—is our highest conservation priority. 

EPA’s decision to conduct a watershed assessment on the potential mining 

impacts in Bristol Bay’s headwaters was based on requests from local stakeholders—native Alaskans, commercial and recreational fishermen, lodge owners, 

and others—to protect the Bristol Bay watershed and the 14,000 recreational and 

commercial fishing jobs and $1.5 billion in annual economic activity that it supports. 

The EPA has done a thorough and commendable job of assessing the risks of mining 

to the world class fisheries of the Bristol Bay region. When the EPA released its 

second draft of its watershed assessment, more than 650,000 commenters expressed 

support for protecting the region’s fisheries and for EPA’s assessment. Across the 

country, three out of four comments received were supportive of the EPA’s efforts, 

and in Alaska, the EPA’s assessment was supported by 84 percent of statewide residents and an incredible 98 percent of Bristol Bay regional residents. 

The watershed assessment found that even in a best case scenario, mining would 

destroy 87 miles of salmon streams and 2,500 acres of wetlands, and create 10 billion tons of waste which would be stored in perpetuity in one of the most seismically 

active regions in the State. America’s foremost professional fisheries group, the 

American Fisheries Society (AFS), and hundreds of leading scientists across the 

Nation agree with TU that the EPA’s estimates of habitat and fisheries loss are conservative. 

A frequent criticism of the draft watershed assessment is its reliance on a ‘‘hypothetical’’ mind proposal. There is not very much that is hypothetical about this 

mine. Northern Dynasty Minerals, one of the two principals in the Pebble Limited 

Partnership (PLP), presented a mine plan to the Securities and Exchange Commission to secure investor support for the Pebble project, and has since lauded the 

mine’s potential benefits through an economic study based on reasonable mining 

scenarios in the Bristol Bay region. PLP has claimed that a mine scenario does not 

exist, while at the same time touting the economic value of it to State and Federal 

officials and their shareholders. PLP cannot have it both ways. Senator Murkowski 

recently agreed with many stakeholders in Alaska that PLP cannot continue on its 

path without unveiling a mining plan to the public.1

Perhaps most telling about the risk presented by this project is the recent decision 

by Anglo American, one of the world’s biggest mining companies, to withdraw from 

the Pebble Partnership, stating that they were going to ‘‘prioritise capital to projects 

with the highest value and lowest risks.’’ The company did not mention the EPA 

as a reason for its decision to withdraw. When specifically asked whether their outlook on regulations and permitting had changed, an Anglo American spokesman reiterated that ‘‘our decision to withdraw from the project is the result of an internal 

prioritisation of the many projects that we have in our portfolio.’’ 2

If ever the EPA had the authority, and indeed the necessity to protect a body of 

water, Bristol Bay is it. The EPA has properly assessed the science and allowed a 

thorough public response to its findings. A coalition of businesses, commercial and 

recreational fishermen, jewelers, outdoor industries, and Alaskan Natives, represents stakeholders from across the political spectrum who are united in the common purpose of protecting some of the most productive salmon and trout habitat on 

the planet that possesses huge commercial, subsistence and recreational value. 

We believe it is in everyone’s best interest for EPA to use its Clean Water Act 

authorities to set prudent limits on industrial-scale mining that will both protect the 

region’s unsurpassed fishery resources and the economies and communities they 

sustain, while clarifying for potential mine developers what is and is not permissible 

so they can make informed business decisions. 

Finally, we urge the Subcommittee to listen carefully to the voice of Alaskans on 

this matter. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s invitation to Norm Van Vactor, a 

commercial fisherman and CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, who will provide strong testimony in support of protecting Bristol Bay. Former 

Alaska State Senate President and Republican Majority Leader Rick Halford also 

opposes the mine, saying ‘‘Mining can do a lot of good things, but the bottom line 

36 

3 EPA Could Move to Stop Pebble Mine, Flyfisherman.com, May 14, 2012: http:// 

www.flyfisherman.com/2012/05/14/epa-could-move-to-stop-pebble-mine/#axzz2h9dVs3v3. 

is that this particular place is the last place on earth we should have a sulfide mine 

so large that it dwarfs the largest open pit mine in North America.’’ 3

The Subcommittee should consider the thousands of Alaskans who commented on 

the watershed assessment, the majority of whom oppose the mine and support 

EPA’s scientific assessment. We urge the Subcommittee and other decisionmakers 

in this process to join local Alaskans in support of the scientifically and economically 

justified need to protect Bristol Bay. 

Sincerely, 

STEVE MOYER, 

Vice President of Government Affairs. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. We will now go into recess for roughly 30 

minutes. Thank you all for your patience. As soon as we are done 

voting we will come back and resume. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. The subcommittee will come back to order. 

Thanks for your patience, everyone. We are done voting, so we 

won’t have to run off again. We can stay here and finish up. And 

this is an important hearing within the jurisdiction and oversight 

of the subcommittee, so I am glad we can do this. 

I am going to start out asking my first question to Mr. Hamilton. 

You mentioned, in your testimony, the tsunami of objection letters that were sent to mining companies in West Virginia after 

President Obama was sworn in. Can you describe the nature of 

these objection letters concerning coal mining in West Virginia? 

Mr. HAMILTON. The letters, for the most part, appeared to be 

form letters that were sent to every mining operation in the State 

that had either a permit pending or recently issued permit, or a 

permit modification before either the Corps of Engineers or EPA. 

And they were objection letters objecting to the permit without 

specificity. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And how many, what number are we talking 

about, what quantity? 

Mr. HAMILTON. A hundred. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And they were all the same? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, that begs the question. Were they thought 

out, or were they just done en masse to start objections for the sake 

of objections? 

Mr. HAMILTON. They appear to be en masse, and they were 

issued either the day of or the day following the President’s inauguration in—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. I don’t see how they could have had time to investigate 100 different pending permits and send out 100 letters on a 

one-by-one basis. That is not possible. 

What is the coal mining industry’s relationship in West Virginia 

with EPA? What was it like prior to President Obama being sworn 

in? 

Mr. HAMILTON. EPA, as it relates to its role in the State of West 

Virginia, has always maintained an oversight role with the U.S. 

Corps of Engineers, in an oversight capacity also with the Office of 

Surface Mining, but primarily with the Corps of Engineers. They 

37 

were involved with several major comprehensive environmental impact statements that were brought about for various reasons 

throughout 2000 to 2007 or 2008. They had a presence, but the 

presence was principally in an oversight capacity. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. What do you think, in more general terms, of the EPA’s use of science as it relates to coal mining 

and the operation of coal-fired electrical plants? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, it appears that most of the science relied 

on by the EPA as it relates to mining operations and coal-fired generating facilities is science basically held by the agency, reviewed 

by the agency, and relied on by the agency. There is a widespread 

disagreement on a lot of the science that the agency relies upon to 

make its policy in regulatory decisions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Has it all been made public? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Some has, some hasn’t. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Do you have any disagreements with some of the 

specific applications of their science, or as it might compare to 

other findings? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Quite honestly, we have been put in a situation 

where we suspect and have disagreements with practically every 

aspect of the agency’s rulemaking and policymaking process. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Can you give me an example in my last 58 

seconds here? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I am not sure, maybe if I could have some 

clarification to the question. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. I will tell you what. Ponder that a minute in 

case we have a second round. 

Mr. HAMILTON. OK. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Fogels, you said States should have more 

flexibility in mining regulations. What could Congress do to achieve 

that? 

Mr. FOGELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We believe that there 

could be some flexibility built into both the Clean Water Act and 

CERCLA, and maybe some other Federal laws, that might allow 

the States to a little more effectively manage their natural resources. In the Clean Water Act, we are currently evaluating 

whether the State of Alaska should go for primacy in wetlands permitting. 

And the big issue for us there is which wetlands do we actually 

get jurisdiction over. We feel the Clean Water Act is a bit ambiguous in that. And we would certainly think that it is worth discussing whether the Clean Water Act could be tightened up to 

allow the States to take the majority of the wetlands within their 

States. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you very much. We are now going to go to 

Representative Fleming. Oh, excuse me. Representative Fleming? 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Van Vactor, the 

title of today’s hearing is, ‘‘EPA Versus American Mining Jobs,’’ 

and you have heard testimony that really focuses on the impact of 

NPA—excuse me, EPA regulations, and over-the-top enforcement of 

regulations, guns drawn, you know, SWAT-style tactics, and so 

forth. And I am enamored—excuse me. I am moved by the fact that 

you are enamored with the EPA in all of that. 

38 

But you note that the economic impact of the Bristol Bay fisheries, and particularly the salmon fishery, rather, to the economy 

of the Bristol Bay region. Are you aware of the proposed EPA regulations on discharges from fishing vessels? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, first of 

all, I don’t know that I am enamored, other than I said I was in 

support of EPA action in Bristol Bay. 

Second, as it relates to the commentary about guns drawn, I 

can’t speak to the situations that folks like Mr. Sheldon experienced—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, you weren’t there, neither was I—— 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Right. 

Dr. FLEMING. So there is no reason to get in it. But the point is, 

what about the EPA regulations for fishing vessels? That is what 

I am asking about. 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. What I can speak to, sir, is that, as it relates 

to large fishing vessels, large fishing processors such that were utilized in the Bristol Bay salmon fishery, I am somewhat familiar 

with the discharge permits required by those. 

Dr. FLEMING. Do you agree with them? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Yes, I do. 

Dr. FLEMING. And you are not concerned about the effect on the 

fishing industry, the impact, the economic impact, and the problems that that may cause? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. I am always concerned about options and deviations. But at the end of the day, the rules and regulations that 

are in place provide for a level playing field. We know who we have 

to talk to to get discharge permits—— 

Dr. FLEMING. If it caused a 30 percent decline in your revenues, 

and unemployed 3,500 people from the fisheries industry, would 

you be comfortable with that? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. For the sake of the greater good, and I am not 

sure where you are getting those statistics—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I am giving an example here with the mining 

industry. Your fellow witness next to you, this is what he said has 

happened to the mining industry. And so, I am just simply applying that to the fishing industry, and to see if you would feel the 

same way about the EPA if there was a war on fishing, the way 

there has been a war on coal. 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. If fishing vessels, sir, were discharging in an 

area that was improper, that was distracting and destroying the 

habitat and the run, we would be willing to forego that harvest. 

Dr. FLEMING. But—— 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. And the jobs associated with it. 

Dr. FLEMING. But again, an all-out—again, reduction of 30 percent production, the retroactive removal of permitting, the loss of 

3,500 jobs, you would be comfortable with that type of loss, and 

also vessels being boarded by armed people with flak jackets and, 

I guess, rifles or shotguns, as we have heard discussed, would you 

be comfortable with that, Mr. Van Vactor? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, let me 

speak to that, I guess your last comment, first. 

I can speak to dozens, if not hundreds, of boarding incidents that 

would have taken place just as late in 2013 which are considered 

39 

routine in our industry. The State of Alaska, we refer to them as 

the brown shirts; they are the enforcement division for Fish and 

Game, boards our vessels all the time. 

Dr. FLEMING. Without identifying themselves, they typically 

board the vessel and start picking up equipment, looking around, 

and not even identifying themselves? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. They come on board, they are uniformed, for 

the strict purpose of identifying and checking crewmen’s licenses. 

Dr. FLEMING. So then, what effect on the Bristol Bay salmon 

fishery would there be if EPA decided to enforce the discharge regulations by sending these armed enforcement guards? What would 

be the impact? How would the industry local to you there, how 

would they react to that? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, I have 

been in the seafood side of the industry for close to 38 of my 40 

years in Bristol Bay. And in many instances I have been inspected 

by EPA investigators. In my case, when they showed up they 

showed up with state troopers who were armed. 

I don’t know what the different protocols are for different agencies, depending upon the situation they are in, and I don’t think 

it is my place to question that. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. So if they show up, state troopers with guns 

and so forth, does that mean that people who are fishermen and 

have boats somehow are a threat to law enforcement? Why would 

they show up with all of that armament? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, again, I 

don’t want to question our law enforcement agencies for the protocol in which they respond to specific situations. 

In my particular region, we have a bill that is being sponsored 

by our State representative right now, asking the State of Alaska 

to allow our village public safety officers to be armed, the very reason being that just 2 months ago one of our community members 

was killed in the act of trying to approach a house where a domestic violence event was taking place. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, that is domestic violence. That is a completely different subject. 

Well, my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

panel, witnesses, for this irrevocable gift of your time today. I just 

want to focus in on one line of questioning, I guess, and perhaps 

statements made earlier about the dispute, I guess, that this administration is waging a ‘‘war on coal.’’ And, in doing so, I want 

to remind folks that it was earlier this year that a White House 

climate advisor, in anticipation of the President’s climate change 

speech, I think it was in June, told the New York Times that a war 

on coal is exactly what is needed. 

I would also want to draw attention to the previous Chairman 

of this Committee, who said that, and this was Chairman Nick 

Rahall, a Democrat, who said, ‘‘I am dead set against the EPA and 

their scheme to issue emission standards that would make it next 

to impossible for new coal-fired power plants to be constructed. 

This callous, ideologically driven agency continues to be numb to 

the economic pain that their reckless regulations cause. Today’s 

40 

rule is just the latest salvo in the EPA’s war on coal, a war I have 

unwaveringly soldiered against. And I will work tirelessly to prevent such an ill-conceived and illogical plan for moving forward.’’ 

This was Democrat Chairman of this Committee, Nick Rahall. 

Do you feel like you are in a war on coal, each of you? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes. We certainly are, in the State of West 

Virginia, where Democrats and Republican office holders alike have 

joined together to try to push back and bring some sanity back to 

the level of oversight and enforcement by our Federal agency. 

Mr. CRAMER. I can tell you that in North Dakota, where I was 

once a coal regulator, the Democrat and Republican members of 

our delegation are united as well, and all refer to it as a war on 

coal. 

Sir, do you feel like you are fighting a war on coal? 

Mr. MAIER. I am a gold miner, so the coal question—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Certainly a good point, yes. 

Mr. MAIER. But I can see it from the perspective, but I am 

not—— 

Mr. CRAMER. You probably feel more like you are in a war than 

most people, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. MAIER. Yes. Well, with the overwhelming Federal regulations, if we can’t get help, I mean I am just here representing small 

families, small miners. And we are, this is, the final straw, if we 

can’t stave off these overwhelming regulations, we can’t survive. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Let me ask you, because one of the things that 

I sometimes find somewhat frustrating is when debate—see, I like 

rigorous debate, I enjoy it. And I like it to be civil, but I also like 

it to be honest. And is calling it a war on coal, from your perspective, necessarily all that bad a characterization of what we are up 

against? 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. Congressman Cramer through the Chair, you 

are looking at me, sir, so I am assuming you are—— 

Mr. CRAMER. I am talking to you, yes. 

Mr. VAN VACTOR. One, I am not an authority on the coal mining 

industry, and so I would be happy to pass along some salmon recipes and invite all of you to Alaska and take you around the wonderful state, Bristol Bay. So, specifically as it relates to that issue, 

I will defer. 

I don’t see this as a war, sir. I see these as separate issues, 

issues that are all delicate, and that we need to take into balance. 

I come from a family of South Dakota gold miners in the Black 

Hills. And I find myself in Alaska, harvesting fish. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. And fair enough. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, my point that I wanted to make is I don’t know that it is so 

dishonest; well, personally, I think it is very honest to refer to it 

as a war on coal. And I don’t really know why my friends who feel 

like they are fighting the other way are ashamed to call it a war 

on coal. I mean, when the administration themselves have referred 

to it as a war on coal, I don’t know, and the previous Democrat 

Chairman has referred to it as a war on coal. 

So, you know, I appreciate what you are up against, and I certainly appreciate those of you that are especially standing up for 

the little guy, as Representative Young referred to, or the working 

men and women whose livelihoods are at stake here. And I think 

41 

that the economic pain that overreach of regulation imposes upon 

the working men and women and the businesses of our country are 

not being, adequately being considered, at all. 

So, I appreciate all of your testimony with regard to whatever industry it is, the area, and all sides. And I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Representative Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dan Benishek. 

I represent the northern half of Michigan, where there are a lot of 

mining opportunities as well, not coal, but iron, copper, gold in our 

area. And we have had a lot of trouble with the EPA, getting permitted to mine the resources that are there, although our area has 

been a mining area for over 100 years, easily. We have multiple 

difficulties dealing with the EPA to get these mines permitted. 

But I just kind of wanted to, and it is very frustrating to me, talk 

to you, Mr. Maier, about this episode you had with the EPA. You 

have been in this area for a decade, as I understand, right? And 

you have dealt with regulatory agencies in the past, right? 

Now, apparently, this recent raid was quite a different episode 

for you. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Maybe I 

missed the details in your testimony. 

Mr. MAIER. Yes. Linda Kile, who is here with me, I didn’t have 

firsthand experience, because they flew over me multiple times, but 

they didn’t come on the ground, because I am 30 miles off the highway. It is a little more complicated to get to my place. But Ms. Kile 

was visited, and she has a very disturbing story. 

But, yes, we deal with regulators on a constant basis. And when 

we do have State regulators come, or BLM come to inspect us, they 

are always polite. Yes, they come armed because of the environment we live in. But they will come out and introduce themselves. 

They find us, they know us by name. We know who they are. And 

they do their inspections, they go. If we are doing something 

wrong, they will say, ‘‘Hey, you guys should straighten this out.’’ 

And normally we have no problems at all. 

Dr. BENISHEK. So this episode apparently was more of an intimidating one? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but tell me 

more about it. 

Mr. MAIER. Well, we feel, and all the miners feel, that it was 

very intimidating. It was very disconcerting, that this can happen. 

You know, just to have regulators come in like they did, in the full 

armor, body armament, and you know, with their automatic weapons, shotguns, just to surround people and not bother to even introduce yourselves. Yes, it was very disconcerting. But—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. They didn’t introduce themselves? They didn’t 

have a warrant of any kind? 

Mr. MAIER. No. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Did they take anybody away with them? 

Mr. MAIER. No, they did not. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Did they make any effort to contact you before 

they showed up, to notify you that they were coming? 

Mr. MAIER. No. In fact, in the EPA’s statement, they said it was 

casual and consensual. Well, no, nobody knew they were coming. 

In fact, they did have the DEC in the loop, the State Department 

of Environmental Conservation. But as far as the rest of the agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
42 

cies we normally—well, the BLM knew about it, too, because we 

were trying to find out where the list came from of the mine sites 

they were going to visit. And so far we have no answers from the 

EPA or the BLM. They kind of just point their fingers at each 

other. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Each other, yes. 

Mr. Fogels, you know, I mentioned that we have had trouble 

with the EPA, as well. I mean we tried to get this county road built 

in my district to service the mine. And, you know, the rules the 

EPA put out there that we had to comply with changed on a 

monthly basis. So it was difficult to comply. And also, they were 

so unreasonable. They wanted a moose-proof fence for the entire 

length of the road, along with designated moose crossings, which 

I never heard of, ever in the history of the country, having 20, 44 

miles of moose-proof fencing. These are really outrageous demands, 

never heard of before. 

Did you have experience with similar type of things in your job? 

Mr. FOGELS. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I would say that we do in 

Alaska have similar experiences. I talked earlier in my testimony 

about the Environmental Protection Agency’s propensity now to 

elevate 404 decisions, after the Army Corps has made them, to a 

higher level. And then they will deem water body and aquatic resource of national importance, and then that just sort of results in 

a whole bunch of new requirements and stipulations in the Army 

Corps’ wetlands permit. 

Dr. BENISHEK. A body of water such as what? 

Mr. FOGELS. Well, one example, we were permitting a bridge 

across the Tanana River, which is a large, glacial river near 

Fairbanks. And the EPA deemed that water body an aquatic resource of national interest. And so I remember their justification 

was it was a tributary to the Yukon and it had salmon in it. And 

so, many rivers in Alaska have salmon in them, and a lot of rivers 

in Alaska are tributaries to the Yukon. So, by that definition, just 

about any river in interior Alaska would be an aquatic resource of 

national interest. 

Dr. BENISHEK. All right. I think my time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative Daines. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve Daines. I represent the State of Montana. So you are seeing the entire congressional delegation from Montana here, as the at-large Member. I 

want to thank you all for the testimony today, and I want to start 

with Mr. Hamilton. 

You know, in Montana, we have the largest coal reserves in the 

country. And often times that is forgotten. We think about Big Sky 

County, which I am a fifth-generation Montanan, and I love to 

spend a lot of time above 10,000 feet and fly fishing and hunting 

and recreating outdoors. We also have tremendous natural resources in coal, oil, and gas. And more recoverable coal than any 

other State in the Union. 

In fact, the coal mining industry employs over 1,200 people in 

our State. We get more than half of our electricity from coal, and 

that keeps energy prices low. Unlike a lot of the movie stars that 

have moved out to Montana and built their starter castles, most 

Montanans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and are fighting to try 

43 

to make ends meet, as they fight for their families and raise their 

kids. 

We are already starting to see, in my State of Montana, the devastating consequences of President Obama’s war on coal. And I 

won’t get into the debate whether it is a war, what have you. I 

mean it is semantics, I suppose. But I do know these regulations 

are starting to have a tremendous impact on the business. 

But let me just say this. Since elected to Congress here last fall, 

I have been developing great relationships with our tribal leaders 

in Montana. And normally they don’t come knocking on the door 

of Republicans. I will tell you what. They are knocking on my door, 

and we are having some great discussions about their future and 

their vision for prosperity on the reservations. 

One of my dear friends, in fact, I walked to kindergarten with 

his cousin, Rachel Old Coyote, her cousin is now Chairman Darrin 

Old Coyote of the Crow Tribe. Let me tell you what Chairman Old 

Coyote said in Montana just a month ago in front of a couple of 

U.S. Senators in Missoula. He said this, and I quote, ‘‘A war on 

coal is a war on our families and our children,’’ Crow Tribal Chairman Darrin Old Coyote said. 

And here is why. They have 50 percent unemployment on the 

Crow reservation. It would be much, much higher, if it weren’t for 

the fact that 70 percent of the coal mining jobs there are held by 

Crow members. In April they signed a 145-million-ton coal deal 

with Westmoreland. In June, a 1.4 billion-ton deal with Cloud 

Peak. The revenues, by the way, from these mining operations on 

the Crow reservation make up two-thirds of the Tribe’s non-Federal 

budget. It is very, very important, and the Tribes are very concerned that Washington, DC and the overreach of the EPA now 

and these regulations are having an effect on their ability, their 

sovereignty to develop their resources for the future and for their 

children. 

In fact, the consequence of this war on coal, the J.E. Corette 

Power Plant in Billings, which was directly impacted by the EPA’s 

Federal regs, is going to be mothballed in 2015. That is in Billings, 

Montana. The closing of that plant is $3 million a year in lost tax 

revenue to the county, and 27 good-paying union jobs. Coal in 

Montana has already accounted for $1.9 billion in tax revenues, the 

severance tax in the State of Montana, which helps us fund infrastructure and so forth in a State that struggles to always make 

ends meet. Thankfully, we are running a surplus right now in 

Montana, but in part due to a strong Ag economy and a natural 

resource economy. 

So, with that as backdrop, Mr. Hamilton, I would like to ask you 

about the EPA’s new performance standards, and how it relates to 

coal-fired power plants. It makes plain good business sense to always look forward to where the industry is headed. As Wayne 

Gretzky said, ‘‘You skate to where the puck is headed.’’ How do you 

see the new proposals impacting the coal industry, and what does 

that mean for the cost of energy for American families? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you. We are very concerned over those 

new performance standards that were alluded to by the other gentleman on the committee. And, of course, he indicated about a proposed standard. Those standards have now been released. They 

44 

were released last month, in September, and they establish a baseline, an emission baseline that just cannot be met today with existing technology that is available to be employed on coal-fired power 

stations. 

We reference a lot of the administrative and regulatory and policy issues that have served to cut our permits off, that have served 

to heighten the enforcement activities of our Federal Government. 

It is often referred to those of us in the business as a death by 

1,000 cuts, because that is what has happened. When you strangle 

and have a permitorium for years, you basically cutoff new opportunities, new commerce. 

The new source performance standards for new coal-fired power 

plants all but ensures that there will never be—never be—another 

coal-fired power generator financed or constructed in this country. 

It effectively eliminates coal and coal-fired generated electricity 

from the all-of-the-above energy strategy that I have heard so 

much about. It completely removes coal from being a consideration, 

going forward. 

Mr. DAINES. OK. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Representative Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for being here. 

Just to follow up on what was being said, I come from east 

Texas, and we do have lignite. Not the quality of the coal that you 

gentlemen are used to seeing. But we have over 1,000—actually, a 

lot more than that that are related to the coal being mined and the 

energy production. 

But something I have noticed. When people are out of work and 

they can’t find jobs, they don’t seem to be nearly as interested in 

the environment. I don’t know if you have noticed that in the 

States from which you come, but it seems like if there is industry 

going that is being regulated to make sure it is not polluting, people have jobs, they can have the luxury of caring about the environment. I am just curious. 

Mr. Fogels, how bad has the air and water gotten during the 

years of coal mining, at least the last 10 or 15 years? 

Mr. FOGELS. Congressman, thank you. Well, in Alaska we are 

proud of our air and water quality. It is pretty spectacular. It has 

been for a long time, and it continues to be to this day. We have 

one major coal mine in Alaska that operates, and a number of, you 

know, I guess in comparison to the Lower 48, fairly small coal-fired 

power plants. But I think the regulation is maintaining the environmental quality quite nicely. All six of our—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, do you care if Alaska gets dirty water or 

air? 

Mr. FOGELS. Yes, I would, Congressman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I mean you are kind of a trustee of it. 

Mr. FOGELS. Absolutely. That is my job, to protect it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Because I get the impression when EPA officials 

come out, many times they act as if they are the only people in the 

world that care about the environment, but they don’t seem to care 

anything at all about the people. And yet, it seems like the more 

I have gone around the different States, including Alaska, the 

State officials care every bit as much, and maybe more, than anyVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Dec 11, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01OC10 1ST SESS\85146.TXT DARLEN
45 

body at the EPA about the environment. I would imagine that the 

people I have not met in State government in Alaska feel the same 

way, don’t they? 

Mr. FOGELS. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Congressman. And we are very 

proud of our record. Again, we have six operating mines. And we 

hear a lot of rhetoric about how bad mining can be, environmentally, and a lot of the problems. Most of those are legacy problems. Our problems in Alaska, we have good mines with good 

environmental records, and we are proud of our regulatory—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, let me ask Mr. Hamilton. You have seen 

people out of work that have worked in the coal industry. You have 

seen people that work in the coal industry. When people are unemployed, and you have a bunch of folks that are, do you see them 

being able to care as much for the environment as they do when 

they are employed? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I think they do care about the environment, and 

I think they do what they can to maintain a good environment, as 

it relates to the air and the water. I am not sure they appreciate 

trading their job for perhaps an incremental increase in environmental quality that is questionable. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. HAMILTON. I think therein lies the personal conflict. 

You know, we are very proud of our environment. You know, we 

are a heavily mining-intensive industry, but we have one of the 

best tourism businesses, you know, that you will find throughout 

the country. People—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. You have a gorgeous State. 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Come to West—I mean we are a 

shining example that you can have both a robust, energy-producing 

industry, and a pretty pristine environment. In fact, the Boy Scout 

Jamboree, 50,000 Boy Scouts chose West Virginia as their home. 

And it just so happened that that parcel of land used by the 

Jamboree—50,000 come from all over the country—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Every single State was represented—is on a reclaimed mine land. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, and why wouldn’t they? As John Denver 

said, it is almost heaven. If you want to get all the way there, you 

can come on down to Texas and we welcome you there. But—— 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, we joined the Big 12. That gets us a little 

closer. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that is true, that is true. But, anyway, there 

seems to be a happy medium somewhere in there. And I don’t 

think the EPA has been as concerned, or has recognized the importance of having a vibrant economy, because everywhere you go in 

the world, if the economy has tanked, if it is bad, they care about 

the environment, but they do not have the luxury of doing anything 

about it. 

So, thank you for all that you gentlemen do to try to make this, 

your State, this world, a better place. Thanks for being here. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. We will have a second, but brief, 

round of questions. 

And I would like to ask you, Mr. Fogels. There has been some 

concern expressed to me a little bit earlier. I was talking to some 

46 

folks in the audience about the sensitive waterways and fish habitat and so on in the area of Alaska that we are talking about here. 

And there is the strong belief that a mine of this nature, a mine 

of this size, would be impossible to open and operate without an 

adverse impact on fish and water quality. 

Is it possible that the EPA and the State of Alaska could impose 

conditions that would have to be followed by a mine operator that 

would prevent such damage, is it impossible to have the two together? 

Mr. FOGELS. Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is definitely not 

impossible to have the two together. The issue we are facing is, 

even though the Bristol Bay watershed assessment has this hypothetical mine design, that is not really the mine design that will 

be submitted to us if the company decides to go forward. We need 

specific plans to evaluate what the real environmental impacts will 

be, and that is the process that should take place. And in that process, you can figure out the engineering details of how the environment would be protected. Then we can judge whether that would 

work or not. 

I mean engineering science is amazing. You can always beef up 

the systems at a cost. So it may be that those protections cost too 

much for the mine to actually be economical. We don’t know that 

yet. All we are saying is that we need the opportunity to let the 

real process run its course, and let the experts evaluate the mine 

design. And it may very well be possible to design something that 

protects the fisheries in Bristol Bay. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So you are saying it is premature to draw that 

conclusion absolutely. 

Mr. FOGELS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. What has the EPA done in a preemptive way that 

seems to be jumping the gun? 

Mr. FOGELS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the whole Bristol Bay 

watershed assessment is jumping the gun. They are looking at a 

preemptive veto of wetlands permitting in eight million acres of our 

lands. 

So you know, again, Pebble aside, this is not about Pebble for us. 

It is about putting new regulations on our land that would hamper 

the way we can develop it in the future. And they are not considering best practices, they are not considering stipulations, mitigation measures. And that, to us, is more than troublesome. We are 

very alarmed by this whole prospect of perhaps losing almost 10 

percent of our land entitlement. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Hamilton, in West Virginia does extensive 

coal mining and sport fishing coexist? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes. They do coexist in almost every single watershed where mining takes place. There is example after example 

of stream water quality improvement that is made on an annual 

basis. And it has been occurring for decades and decades. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And can you tell me, bring me up to date on the 

West Spruce Mine operation? Is that the correct name? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Spruce Number One Mine. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Spruce, can you bring me up to date on that? 

Mr. HAMILTON. And this is probably, yes sir. This probably ranks 

amongst one of the most studied mining complexes that you will 

47 

find anywhere not only in our little State, but anywhere in the 

country, or maybe even the world. It underwent one of the most 

stringent, comprehensive environmental assessments of any industrial permit of that magnitude, or operation of that magnitude. 

In fact, I think it was 6 or 7 years that all the pre-mining data 

for the permit, all the engineering work, was being developed. It 

was being developed in concert with State and Federal agencies, 

the Office of Surface Mining, the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 

even EPA, all eventually signed off on that permit. 

It was signed off on and approved in 2007, only to have—and 

there was equipment put, several millions of dollars of development, equipment spreads were put onsite, the infrastructure to accommodate the mine was developed, miners were employed. And 

when this administration took office, they initially threatened to 

veto that permit, wanted to study it more. 

And, quite frankly, you know, we have heard from practically 

every manufacturer, every other industry around this country that 

is involved with the Corps and require a 404 permit questioning 

the specifics, the conditions. Because, quite frankly, they were concerned that if EPA could go back and revoke a lawful approved permit, that could set a precedent and happen elsewhere. 

That mine is idle today. That mine has been idled. EPA has followed through with their plans to rescind and veto that permit. 

They first tried with our State, then they tried with their own sister agency, U.S. Corps of Engineers, that went through the concerns raised by the current EPA Administration, point by point, 

and answered every single concern, addressed every single condition. This is the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and they basically joined 

with the West Virginia DEP and said, ‘‘That mine and that permit 

ought to continue as it was approved, because of all the years of 

study and evaluation that went into it.’’ And that is being litigated 

today. 

The company met with EPA. They had a series of meetings that 

went over months and months, and they tried to accommodate 

every concern, redesign the mine, reengineer the mine, take into 

consideration, you know, all the economics, the geology, and just 

could not meet the demands of EPA. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for the update. Representative 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you again. I want to ask a question again 

of Mr. Fogels, because, as you know, we are here about the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and mining, whether or not they can be 

compatible. But this administration obviously is trying to preemptively close off an area in Alaska that is the size of West Virginia. 

And, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife national survey of 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation found that 

305,000 fishermen in West Virginia contributed $750 million to the 

economy in West Virginia, only on sport fishing. 

So, I ask you, Mr. Fogels, do you find that in Alaska that mining 

and fishing seem to get along there? And if West Virginia, that obviously has mining, and has that significant amount of fishing, can 

support nearly a billion dollars in income from fishing, do you 

48 

think the same area, the same sized area in Alaska, could also accommodate one mine? 

Mr. FOGELS. Mr. Congressman, I think to answer your question, 

yes, I do believe that some type of mining activity could certainly 

happen on that eight million acres with very little impact to the 

fish, and maintain the vibrant fisheries that are for both subsistence users, sports users, and commercial users. There is no question that we have the technology to allow mining to happen within 

that eight million acres responsibly to coexist. 

We are living proof of that already. Our mines in Alaska already 

have healthy fish populations downstream. Some mines have actually improved the habitat for and the water quality for fisheries. 

So modern mining and the modern mining regulatory process is 

working in Alaska, and it can work in Bristol Bay. Whether it can 

work for a mine the size of Pebble, again, as I mentioned before, 

we don’t know yet, because no one has given us the plans yet. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But you certainly think that is conceivable. And 

the plans, once submitted, would have to be approved, right? 

Mr. FOGELS. Yes, sir. Very thoroughly reviewed. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I might mention to you some years back, actually my freshman term here, we had field hearings around the 

country, and we had hearings in Washington State. And we had 

heard from one power company there that they were required to, 

well, it cost them $8 million that the Federal Government cost 

them to preserve fish in a river. And the $8 million lost or cost actually saved 20 salmon. 

And, at the time, I raised the issue wouldn’t it be possible to 

have a whole lot less money than that produce a whole lot more 

fish, salmon, to be exact. And there were groups there that said, 

‘‘Absolutely not. There is no fish you can ever produce in a hatchery that could ever be the same in any way, really, as the fish that 

are spawned in the wild.’’ And since then we have the benefit of 

information that indicates you really can’t tell the difference, if 

they are hatched in a hatchery, or they are hatched out in a 

stream. 

So, I just encourage you to keep that in mind, as well. They can 

work together. And, actually, if nature had its way, there would be 

a lot more extinct species around this country than there are now. 

But thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I want to thank everyone also for being here, and 

you have come a long way in many cases, and we appreciate your 

testimony and appreciate answering our questions. 

Members of the committee may have additional questions for the 

record. 

And if you are given those, I would ask that you respond to those 

in writing. 

If there is no further business, then without objection the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

49 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN NIKI TSONGAS

It is absurd that we are holding this hearing without a single witness from the 

Environmental Protection Agency. As my friends on the other side of the aisle well 

know, the Administration was unable to send a witness because of the ongoing Republican shutdown and the Federal worker furloughs. The Federal Government is 

shut down today for one reason: we have been denied any chance of voting on the 

clean funding bill passed by the Senate. No piecemeal approach, no temporary fix 

here or there is going to put an end to this reckless shutdown. Only one bill can 

re-open all of the government today, and it is time for the House to vote on the 

straightforward, Senate-passed funding bill. 

Conducting this hearing with full knowledge that someone from the EPA would 

be unable to attend is irresponsible and demonstrates a complete disregard for the 

important work that they do. This is particularly worrisome in regards to the proposed Pebble Mine near Bristol Bay, Alaska, which is of considerable interest to my 

home State of Massachusetts. 

The EPA is currently conducting the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, and 

early drafts have found that large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed could 

cause irreparable damage to the fisheries and the jobs they support. The watershed 

assessment found that even in a best case scenario, mining would destroy 87 miles 

of salmon streams and 2,500 acres of wetlands. The Bristol Bay Watershed is home 

to the world’s most valuable wild salmon fishery, valued at over $1.5 billion annually and supports an estimated 12,000 jobs. Even fishermen from my home State 

of Massachusetts make the journey to Alaska each year to fish during the 3-month 

salmon season. 

In Massachusetts, we have seen the devastating impacts of the decline of the fishing industry. The proposed mine near Bristol Bay would present an unavoidable and 

unacceptable risk to the salmon fishery in Alaska and the thousands of people who 

depend on it for their family’s livelihood. Fishermen from across Massachusetts and 

New England stand in strong opposition to large-scale mining in Bristol Bay because it could cause undue harm to a community that has a long and proud history 

of commercial fishing. 

I urge my colleagues to ask the Speaker to bring the Senate CR to the floor for 

a vote so we can bring an end to this Republican shutdown so that agencies like 

the EPA can get back to work and provide certainty to the many people who depend 

on the Bristol Bay fisheries to support their families. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

• Alaska Legislature Letter 

• Mr. Van Vactor’s Attachments that Accompanied his Testimony: 

1. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of 

Alaska Anchorage, The Economic Importance of the Bristol 

Bay Salmon Industry (2013) 

2. Bristol Bay Regional Vision Statement (2011) 

3. Riley/Yocom, Mining the Pebble Deposit: Issues of 404 Compliance and Unacceptable Environmental Impacts Executive 

Summary (2011) 

• Mr. Fogels’ Attachments that Accompanied his Testimony: 

1. IMCC Resolution Federalism Funding 

2. IMCC Resolution Financial Responsibility Bonding 

3. IMCC WGA Resolution on Bonding 

Æ